Jewish math

the only good western art music is the mememinimalism and proto-electronic shit during the 20th century as well as like 2 or 3 composers that made nice tunes

overall its just a bad musical tradition when you think about it since any interesting part of it was created by a complete paradigm shift (shostakovich, reich, etc (no i dont know any non modern composers so fuck off))

ASHKENAZI

ACTIVATE

Holy shit please tell me you're being ironic. Minimalism is low-tier art.

>I don't know any non modern composers
If you don't know then you can't have an opinion on it you absolute pseud.

[math] \mathbb{YOU \ CAME \ TO \ THE \ WRONG \ BOARD \ GOY} [/math]

[math] \mathbb{SCI \ IS \ AN \ ASHKENAZIC \ BOARD} [/math]

listen buddy it all sounds the same to me - shit; faggy; and full of tinny, grating strings that sound full of themselves.

calling minimalism low-tier art while claiming to enjoy western art music only serves to highlight your similar lack of knowledge of what minimalism was, is and how it is perhaps different to your predisposed ideas of minimal visual art

Turing wasn't a Jew.

>Türing
thatsthejoke.exe

Further proof Mozart is underrated.

what's wrong with it, elaborate

Arabians were the best mathematicians until one faggot decided that math was heresy.

Set theory exchanges potential infinity, the idea that had been used since Aristotle, for actual infinity. The difference is like this: whereas potential infinity says you can go as far as you want with numbers, and can never run out (in a sense you're creating them as you count them), actual infinity says that all the numbers exist right here, right now, and can be manipulated as a set. It is basically the same lie as usury, where it holds the future as an asset that can be bought and sold. Set theory leads to all sorts of contradictions, such as how the set of natural numbers and the set of counting numbers have the same cardinality (size). Set theory also leads to absurd paradoxes, such as the set of all sets not being a set (or is it?), and was shown to be inadequate by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. Look it up, goys...this and usury are the two Jewish tools of our generation.

;_; please

Hivemind

I couldn't tell about math, but it happened to architecture. It was all pure and good until Jews and Le Corbusier came along, stating that aesthetics is arbitrary and what have you. It's no wonder all modern architecture is shit.

Link'em or GTFO, kid.

Well, I don't know about math, but it happened to memes. It was all pure and good until the /mathbb{PHENOTYPES} came flooding in, claiming that /mathbb{RACE} is arbitrary and what have you. It's no wonder all popular memes are shit.

Here's an article that breaks it down. It's big, trust me. Aryan potential infinity, or Jewish actual infinity.

Greatest Mathematicians: Aryan
Greatest Composers: Aryan
Greatest Scientists: Aryan (Einstein being the only Jew who comes close)

>using an iPad, the tool of the jew
I can see through your deception. I will not believe the Hebrew. It must be that actual infinity is pure and Aryan while potential infinity is jewish trash.

HAHAHAHA I HAVE WON AGAIN YOU FILTHY JEW

No with that atitude, lad.

The greatest composer and scientist are from fucking an extinct south asian tribe. Wtf are you talking about.

You just fell for the Serbian Jew double bluff

what do you guys think Witten sama discusses when he is drunk?

big jewish titties and hetero-erotic string theory

I think you have you history mixed up bud. The aryans were invaders into south asian, not native

Opportunities for Jews do study maths and science were closed until the late 19th century.

who is that

BTFO.

Jewish iq is a meme. Notice that all of these iq studies discern between east Asians and southeast Asians, as well as Ashkenazi and other jews, yet all gentile whites are lumped together - Irish with English, northern Italian with southern, and all of the rest.
Regardless, Jews lack the visuospatial skills and creativity to be first class mathematicians.

fuck off to

Fuck off to .

It is both actual and potential because it is always growing.

>Set theory leads to all sorts of contradictions
Publish one (1) contradiction that set theory leads to, and you will be considered one of the greatest mathematicians of the 21st century. I'll be among the first to congratulate you.

>leads to absurd paradoxes
Philosophers are interested in paradoxes. Mathematicians aren't.

Russell's paradox.

Reminder that coming up with new axioms to avoid it is a copout.

Let's differentiate a gambler from a player. A gambler calculates the odds of victory and places his bet on what looks like the long term winner. When odds are tight like 6:4 for A:B, the gambler has yet to make a binary decision that favors only one side ie he is always expecting that player A wins against player B. This is similar to always having your umbrella when there is 51% chance of rain, always expecting rain from 50% or more, specially if bringing your umbrella costs you as much as getting wet by rain. Reality is made of these two-sided predictions besides all the statistics that you would like to bring to the table and use as an answer: you have to predict exactly what happens on each event, and there isn't a third position. The player is given two outcomes within the game: win or lose. Given the two he always expects victory when deciding to play the game. If odds are 1:5, the player yet expects victory 100% of the time he plays. Being given participation in the outcome seems to be the big difference between the player and the gambler. Now let's expand the concept of game to include gambling: a gambler is a player in the gambling game. Thus he has participation and expects victory at hard odds, due to competition, as well otherwise he doesn't play. But now since he is a player, that means people can bet on him, including himself. However his bet is by definition consistent with him as a player on the Gambling game. So he takes rewarded risks there, which is a contradiction. Thus to win at gambling you become a player, adding risks to beat the competition, and sole gamblers necessarily lose. Now, do you agree that of all traditional professions, the Trader is closest to the Gambler? The Edge of the Merchant is not comfortable, it is the Risky Investment, the Leap of Faith, the Tycoon Insight, that puts him on the long term good position, and a merchant who fails at that, fails and has to cheat one way or the other, sacrificing the long term.

Imagine actually reading all of this.

Can it be manipulated like a number is what the controversy is. Also, what do you mean it's always growing? Does the counter make it grow by the act of counting, or is it already completely extant?

What do you mean? Do you mean that the merchant must drive out competition and therefore undercut his ability to play? Can you clarify?

The barbershop paradox. If the barber shaves all the men who don't shave themselves, does the barber shave himself?

Btw, the line between math and philosophy is not very well-drawn.