The earth is flat and I can prove it mathematically

The earth is flat and I can prove it mathematically.

Assume the universe does not have breadth along infinitely many dimensions. This is a pretty reasonable assumption, since the most dimensions the universe has ever been seriously hypothesized to extend along is something like 13, which is indeed a finite number.

Let d be a dimension along which the universe does not have breadth. Since one can conceive of infinitely many dimensions, but the universe does not have breadth along infinitely many dimensions, d exists.

Therefore the universe is flat along d.

The earth is entirely contained within the universe.

Therefore the earth is also flat. (Along d.)

None of the common arguments for a round earth can refute this, because they all address the question of whether the earth is "flat" in the sense of being a two dimensional manifold, which it obviously is not; whereas I'm arguing here that the earth is "flat" in the sense of being an N-1 dimensional manifold within an N dimensional space for some conceivable N, which everything always is, because N is a free variable.

>hey guys the earth is flat but not flat in terms of what we think flat is and so for all practical intents and purposes it could still be considered to be round
3/10 shitpost

>Assume the universe

Whoops. Kinda lost track of being mathematical right from the get-go, eh?

Granted. But consider this: if the earth at some point goes back in time to seed its own existence, the value of N for which it is round may exceed 3.

Are you implying assuming the universe exists to prove the earth is flat is circular reasoning? Because it isn't.

No, I'm *stating* that mathematical proofs don't start with assumptions. They start with relevant numerical facts.

Also, you're falsely constricting the universe to a single dimension. There's no call for that, except to support your fallacious conclusion.

>No, I'm *stating* that mathematical proofs don't start with assumptions. They start with relevant numerical facts.
A mathematical proof must assume its system of axioms.
>Also, you're falsely constricting the universe to a single dimension.
I'm doing no such thing. I'm only constricting the universe to a finite number of dimensions. Whether or not I'm doing so falsely is beyond the scope of the proof as defined by its assumptions.
>There's no call for that, except to support your fallacious conclusion.
How is my conclusion fallacious?

...

>>Also, you're falsely constricting the universe to a single dimension.
>I'm doing no such thing.
You are. You're stating " the universe is flat along d." You are not taking into account all the others. Also, everything you've said up until then is hypothetical, unproven, and basically a ind exercise. It is not a proof.

*mind exercise* (thought experiment)

>You are. You're stating " the universe is flat along d." You are not taking into account all the others.
I don't have to. If there exists a dimension along which the universe is flat, the universe is flat.
>Also, everything you've said up until then is hypothetical, unproven, and basically a ind exercise.
As are axiomatic systems.
>It is not a proof.
Then there are no proofs.

>I don't have to. If there exists a dimension along which the universe is flat, the universe is flat.
(Along that dimension.)

I fucked your mom and can prove it mathematically.

First, we define "fucked" to mean "slept on." Next, we define "your mom" as "the floor of a Greyhound station." It is trivial to prove that I did, in fact, sleep on the floor of a Greyhound station, because I'm an unemployed homeless shitposter.

None of the common arguments against me fucking your mom can refute this, because they all address the question of whether I literally put my penis into the vagina of the woman who gave birth to you; whereas I'm talking about a completely different thing and barely trying to equivocate between them. QED.

>Then there are no proofs.

Axiomatic systems require proven axioms as input. You're only providing hypothetical bounding arguments and trying to force a definite conclusion. Yes, if all you say is right, then you are right. But there is no proof that all you say is right. It's reasonable, but not a proof.

>proven axioms
And how do you prove axioms?

Also, you're ignoring the other dimensions so you can select the one where the universe is flat, and trying to convince us that the one dimension makes it true everywhere. The question is whether the Earth is flat or round. That means you have to take into account perception, which needs a frame of reference, and as humans we are a part of a 3D universe.

If you want to say the Earth is flat in your particular dimension, fine.

...

>Axiomatic systems require proven axioms as input.
No such system can exist. It would necessarily be inconsistent.
Yes that is pretty much the idea.

>Also, you're ignoring the other dimensions so you can select the one where the universe is flat, and trying to convince us that the one dimension makes it true everywhere.
No, no, not true everywhere, just true.
Claiming it's true everywhere would be silly and absurd. The earth obviously has breadth along at least three dimensions, four if you count time which is controversial.
But it is obviously true, in the sense of being true somewhere.

>The earth is flat and I can prove it mathematically.
But it was already disproven mathematically

Yes but they were talking about the wrong kind of flat
My kind of flat is better because it takes more possible frames of reference into consideration

that's... not what the issue is about. its a question of whether the earth, within the 3 dimensions we percieve, is somewhat spherical, or atleast deviates roughly the same amount from the center in 3 dimensions.