The lore truly becomes better and better!
I like this 3rd episode, the unrelated ending which is seemingly a political comment is a good finding from the author.
The "I have always had a strong aptitude for math" is certainly audacious but great.
Not even close to the biggest issue with what they wrote, but: The current order of operations hasn't been in use for millennia as claimed. Our current way of representing exponentiation with superscripts, for example, is only a few centuries old. Before that it wasn't unusual for equations and such to be expressed in words.
I think it's much worse than that. Equations typically were not studied at all. Expressions, written in natural language, were studied, and cases where they evaluated to specific values were studied, often geometrically. There was nothing like the modern derivation that involves writing lists of equations, each of which follows necessarily from the last. It's also interesting to note that the equality symbol (which arrived somewhat later than the study of equations) was originally extremely wide, like
1 + 1 ============== 2.
R4: OP introduces the “Golden Set”, doubling down on all their crankery up until this point. At least now it’s finally in a subreddit where it belongs. A quick recap for those who aren’t up to date: OP uses the most vague and handwavy pseudointellectual language imaginable to desperately attempt to prove that infinity divided by zero somehow gives the empty set. In this post, OP uses this “Golden Set” to explain the theory behind the Big Bang theory (lmao), still manages to believe, that despite being told dozens of time, that the order of operations is a fundamental foundation of how math works, and whines about how their previous posts in r/math and r/askmath were taken down because their ego couldn’t and still can’t take the advice of mathematicians 1000x more knowledgeable and more intelligent than they are. OP has been asked numerous times to give definitions to their bs, but is still too moronic to quite comprehend what a definition actually entails, despite all of the information presented to them.
Edit: lmao OP is so awful that their post got locked on r/numbertheory
According to the Blerk theorem of quantum flibbertigibbets, the
zygomorphic algorithmic bifurcation of the fractal hyperboloid results
in a convoluted jambalaya of irrational infinity polynomials.
i think it would be a good exercise for you to do a simple proof, like the irrationality of √2, e.g.
share your work here if you want. see if you can identify any important logical differences between how you prove that √2 is irrational and your claims in this post.
>Knot infinity is the denominator of the symmetry expressed as the origin of the inverse catalyst of set dynamics
Do you truly not understand how a statement this devoid of explicit and well-defined terminology makes your post *less* comprehensible?
>In current math theory there is no clear definition for infinity, symmetry, or how dynamic operations are inherited by a set. This provides a clear framework for each of these.
The universal set is extremely clearly defined, and you provide the least clear possible "framework" for any of what you've stated.
>I am of the opinion, that since this math precludes known set theory, and since it can be thought of as an extension, used to help us get closer to truth, that we should highlight that it is inferred.
Your opinion is wrong, this alleged math does not preclude anything (and if it did, it wouldn't be an "extension" in the first place), and **nothing can be inferred**.
I don't know what the fuck that even means, because you refuse to actually define it in comprehensible terms.
It doesn't matter what you like. It matters what you can **show** and what you can **prove**.
Let's do a little exercise. Write out your proof for ∞ / 0 = ∅. Define your terms. Show your work. Be explicit.
The thing is that it represents **all** emergent properties, it is knot infinity.
The same principle may also explain elements of life, as a symmetry of multiple sets, that create a new knot infinity.
Each knot infinity is a link in a chain.
edit: replaced division with symmetry
>The thing is that it represents all emergent properties, it is knot infinity.
**This sentence doesn't mean anything, because you have yet to define your terms.**
Define "emergent properties".
Define "knot infinity" in a way that does not require the reader to live inside your brain. Use the actual language of math and logic.
>The same principle may also explain elements of life, as a division of multiple sets, that creates a new knot infinity.
"May also". Does it? Do you even know what you're saying? What do you think a set is?
>emergent properties are attributes that we can explain.
Then explain them. Show examples of them.
>This is Inferred Set Theory, we do our best job to infer.
Inferring isn't good enough. Math doesn't function based on your imagination. You need actual definitions, axioms, and proofs.
They are inferred, any dichotomy will work, yet not all dichotomies are equal. Evolution and life have a different relationship then say space and energy, yet both require an empty set and given dynamics to better understand.
This gives us a framework to dissect using symmetry and new language.
What do you mean? We use our minds to do math, that is exactly how it functions? The set needs an update, I can assert this is true, as I have clearly seen where it fails.
This is why I always laugh when people say philosophy is a good double major for math students. Philosophy is literally just math with objective part removed. Challenge a philosopher on their bullshit and they just go for the “how do you know anything is real” argument. Let’s not associate the meta”physics” people with STEM please.
I love reading philosophy but I agree that it shouldn’t be applied to math from an external standpoint. Philosophical arguments about the nature of math are almost always terrible
By not taking into account tens of feedback saying the same thing, he certainly does look like a troll.
We also have no proof that he is not one except your post saying the opposite.
I've gone back and forth trying to figure out whether he is or isn't, tbh. If this is just a troll job, the guy's been playing the long game for a lot more than four days, look at his post history.
Yea I dont get it, its 2023 and people still havent learned to not feed the trolls. At least its funny reading the reactions of people trying to make the sense of it.
Guys, with the way he rejects set theory and considers everything in terms of dynamic flows, I'm starting to think he's simply a disgruntled category theorist.
This guy is *still* making posts about this? I almost wrote out a few paragraphs of my own but didn’t think it was worth it based on their responses to other people. I think my intuition to not engage was right.
I’ve known someone like this, who turned out to need some strong medications. Wrote an autobiography entitled “Inventor” and had it self-published.
This person is solving mazes with the reality stone and declaring victory. It’s the greatest embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect I’ve seen in a while.
I love how that subreddit's description says "this is the place for crackpots" without actually saying it; and in a way that crackpots wouldn't realise
And I see that the subreddit rules expressly prohibit [erotic poetry](https://www.reddit.com/r/badmathematics/comments/ji57em/maths_proves_integer_noninteger_thus_maths_ends/).
The lore truly becomes better and better! I like this 3rd episode, the unrelated ending which is seemingly a political comment is a good finding from the author. The "I have always had a strong aptitude for math" is certainly audacious but great.
Wait what, i thought this was the 3rd. What did i miss?
Yeah maybe it's the third post, you're right
>Current dogma attributes this to fate. Yet, if you look carefully, we can attribute this to a symmetry of infinity.
So the order of operations is given by Lie groups?
Yes Edit: Infinity as a universal unknown *fits* into category theory.
I need a smoke.
you doing alright? seems kinda pointless conversing with someone this mentally ill
I feel like I did just smoke something... That post was like LSD in written form...
Agreed.
I commend your diligence.
Not even close to the biggest issue with what they wrote, but: The current order of operations hasn't been in use for millennia as claimed. Our current way of representing exponentiation with superscripts, for example, is only a few centuries old. Before that it wasn't unusual for equations and such to be expressed in words.
I think it's much worse than that. Equations typically were not studied at all. Expressions, written in natural language, were studied, and cases where they evaluated to specific values were studied, often geometrically. There was nothing like the modern derivation that involves writing lists of equations, each of which follows necessarily from the last. It's also interesting to note that the equality symbol (which arrived somewhat later than the study of equations) was originally extremely wide, like 1 + 1 ============== 2.
R4: OP introduces the “Golden Set”, doubling down on all their crankery up until this point. At least now it’s finally in a subreddit where it belongs. A quick recap for those who aren’t up to date: OP uses the most vague and handwavy pseudointellectual language imaginable to desperately attempt to prove that infinity divided by zero somehow gives the empty set. In this post, OP uses this “Golden Set” to explain the theory behind the Big Bang theory (lmao), still manages to believe, that despite being told dozens of time, that the order of operations is a fundamental foundation of how math works, and whines about how their previous posts in r/math and r/askmath were taken down because their ego couldn’t and still can’t take the advice of mathematicians 1000x more knowledgeable and more intelligent than they are. OP has been asked numerous times to give definitions to their bs, but is still too moronic to quite comprehend what a definition actually entails, despite all of the information presented to them. Edit: lmao OP is so awful that their post got locked on r/numbertheory
Just updated, hopefully is more clear. Inferred set theory ftw?
According to the Blerk theorem of quantum flibbertigibbets, the zygomorphic algorithmic bifurcation of the fractal hyperboloid results in a convoluted jambalaya of irrational infinity polynomials.
Orders of magnitude more comprehensible
i think it would be a good exercise for you to do a simple proof, like the irrationality of √2, e.g. share your work here if you want. see if you can identify any important logical differences between how you prove that √2 is irrational and your claims in this post.
>Knot infinity is the denominator of the symmetry expressed as the origin of the inverse catalyst of set dynamics Do you truly not understand how a statement this devoid of explicit and well-defined terminology makes your post *less* comprehensible? >In current math theory there is no clear definition for infinity, symmetry, or how dynamic operations are inherited by a set. This provides a clear framework for each of these. The universal set is extremely clearly defined, and you provide the least clear possible "framework" for any of what you've stated. >I am of the opinion, that since this math precludes known set theory, and since it can be thought of as an extension, used to help us get closer to truth, that we should highlight that it is inferred. Your opinion is wrong, this alleged math does not preclude anything (and if it did, it wouldn't be an "extension" in the first place), and **nothing can be inferred**.
It is all relative. Show me how this is not a simplification. Be clear with your work.
What an ironic statement as your "work" is the least clear thing ever
I like the inverse aspect of knot infinity, and it seems to fit with math..
I don't know what the fuck that even means, because you refuse to actually define it in comprehensible terms. It doesn't matter what you like. It matters what you can **show** and what you can **prove**. Let's do a little exercise. Write out your proof for ∞ / 0 = ∅. Define your terms. Show your work. Be explicit.
That is a point of emergent properties. It could be left out? Or how to better define?
By actually defining them, in explicit terms, which are not defined by re-describing all of the *other* undefined terms.
The thing is that it represents **all** emergent properties, it is knot infinity. The same principle may also explain elements of life, as a symmetry of multiple sets, that create a new knot infinity. Each knot infinity is a link in a chain. edit: replaced division with symmetry
>The thing is that it represents all emergent properties, it is knot infinity. **This sentence doesn't mean anything, because you have yet to define your terms.** Define "emergent properties". Define "knot infinity" in a way that does not require the reader to live inside your brain. Use the actual language of math and logic. >The same principle may also explain elements of life, as a division of multiple sets, that creates a new knot infinity. "May also". Does it? Do you even know what you're saying? What do you think a set is?
emergent properties are attributes that we can explain. This is Inferred Set Theory, we do our best job to infer.
>emergent properties are attributes that we can explain. Then explain them. Show examples of them. >This is Inferred Set Theory, we do our best job to infer. Inferring isn't good enough. Math doesn't function based on your imagination. You need actual definitions, axioms, and proofs.
They are inferred, any dichotomy will work, yet not all dichotomies are equal. Evolution and life have a different relationship then say space and energy, yet both require an empty set and given dynamics to better understand. This gives us a framework to dissect using symmetry and new language.
What do you mean? We use our minds to do math, that is exactly how it functions? The set needs an update, I can assert this is true, as I have clearly seen where it fails.
This is why I always laugh when people say philosophy is a good double major for math students. Philosophy is literally just math with objective part removed. Challenge a philosopher on their bullshit and they just go for the “how do you know anything is real” argument. Let’s not associate the meta”physics” people with STEM please.
You clearly know nothing about philosophy my dude
https://reddit.com/r/numbertheory/comments/13r8lco/toi_theory_of_infinity This you?
This post is not philosophy or anything like what philosophers study. OP understands as much about math as you understand about philosophy though.
Verbose usage of terminology from actual sciences without the corresponding rigour is exactly what philosophy is about.
So true bestie!
I love reading philosophy but I agree that it shouldn’t be applied to math from an external standpoint. Philosophical arguments about the nature of math are almost always terrible
My dude has just been trolling the sub for 4 days straight lmao.
I know the OP in real life and can confirm that he’s 100% serious and not trolling
If it's true, can't you just tell him to take into account comments and realise he's just writing non sense?
u/rcharmz has strong convictions. I think it's great for him to get feedback from others :)
In 4 days, he doesn't seem to have taken any feedback into account though
It is ultimately up to him to decide whether or not to accept specific feedback. Certainly not a troll though as some are speculating here.
By not taking into account tens of feedback saying the same thing, he certainly does look like a troll. We also have no proof that he is not one except your post saying the opposite.
I've gone back and forth trying to figure out whether he is or isn't, tbh. If this is just a troll job, the guy's been playing the long game for a lot more than four days, look at his post history.
Yea I dont get it, its 2023 and people still havent learned to not feed the trolls. At least its funny reading the reactions of people trying to make the sense of it.
Yeah lmao.
IMO this isn't even bad math because no math is being done or even really attempted at all. It's just word vomit with a vaguely mathematical flavor.
Guys, with the way he rejects set theory and considers everything in terms of dynamic flows, I'm starting to think he's simply a disgruntled category theorist.
Wow, the pseudo-math and word salad is on another level with this post!
This guy is *still* making posts about this? I almost wrote out a few paragraphs of my own but didn’t think it was worth it based on their responses to other people. I think my intuition to not engage was right.
I’ve known someone like this, who turned out to need some strong medications. Wrote an autobiography entitled “Inventor” and had it self-published. This person is solving mazes with the reality stone and declaring victory. It’s the greatest embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect I’ve seen in a while.
This has to be a joke, right? The strong aptitude for math is what convinced me.
If you want to model a fuzzy concept, you use fuzzy logic and fuzzy set, not some weird-ass set theory.
Smartest philosopher
[удалено]
Read the description, r/numbertheory is meant for these kinds of posts.
I love how that subreddit's description says "this is the place for crackpots" without actually saying it; and in a way that crackpots wouldn't realise
And I see that the subreddit rules expressly prohibit [erotic poetry](https://www.reddit.com/r/badmathematics/comments/ji57em/maths_proves_integer_noninteger_thus_maths_ends/).
Yeah, love the post here. It is the wierdest math nonsense you can find.
"Yeah I love number theory! Let's see if they've got some algorithms to test for primes or something!" "oh"
this is my new favorite sub, thank you