It's mathematically meaningless unless there is a formalization of it you can refer to. There currently doesn't appear to be one, so you have to define it before using it.
Pop-sci garbage and word games belong on either or
Is this guy seriously the only non-spooked mathematician in academia right now?
Dylan Torres
Jason Sanders
I don't understand what you're saying. Where is this quote from?
Noah Wright
...
Cameron Wilson
That's a limitation of mathematics then.
Jordan Hill
>/r/eddit/
Alexander Campbell
Not being filled with word games and reddit-pop-sci garbage is in no way a limitation.
The inability of mathematically illiterate retards to make pop-sci garbage statements without being ridiculed is also in no way a limitation.
Jason Brooks
[math]\inf := \vert \mathbb{N} \vert[/math]
Happy now?
Joshua Barnes
>Throwing what around?
Elsewhere in this thread I literally said that infinity was poorly defined. Now you are trying to insult me by implying that "infinity" is poorly defined. No shit, dude, I agree, and that's part of the problem of why infinities shouldn't be lurking around in the axioms and planting the seeds of inconsistency.
Isaiah Jones
Not until you specify the language this is written in. You would also need to show that all of the symbols used here are well defined.
>I literally said that infinity was poorly defined
I think it's simply not defined. But that doesn't make the concept itself invalid, nor does it lead to any contradictions.
Answer my question, do you believe ZF without the axiom of infinity to be consistent?
>infinit"ies".
>planting the seeds of inconsistency.
Another case of reddit-pop-sci "understanding" of "mathematics". Refrain from posting here.
Camden Howard
ya'll niggas need constructive type theory