Difference between revisions of "The limits and guesses in math"

From apm
Jump to: navigation, search
(basic points)
 
m (category + speculative)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{stub}}
 
{{stub}}
 +
{{speculative}}
 
  math is not an exact science
 
  math is not an exact science
  
Line 13: Line 14:
 
* Chaitin's constant
 
* Chaitin's constant
 
* The program that calculates all construable programs in cantor triangle style - [[A true but useless theory of everything]]
 
* The program that calculates all construable programs in cantor triangle style - [[A true but useless theory of everything]]
 +
 +
[[Category:Philosophical]]

Revision as of 19:29, 2 October 2015

This article is a stub. It needs to be expanded.
This article is speculative. It covers topics that are not straightforwardly derivable from current knowledge. Take it with a grain of salt. See: "exploratory engineering" for what can be predicted and what not. 
math is not an exact science

Does a number which is not representable by the means that our universe provide (amount of demixing in the big bang) us even exist? Ridiculously large numbers can easily be represented by simple compression methods e.g. the ackermann function but between those numbers there are gaping holes of unrepresentability. While we don't know which of the ridiculously big numbers we can represent in a smaller compressed form we can be certain that there are unaccountably many more which certainly can't be represent within the limits of our universe.

Disclaimer: All "certainties" in this article (and anywhere else in this universe) are only certainties to the degree of practicability from experience.

Related

  • the severe limitedness of pseuo random number generators - inaccessibility of vast ranges
  • Chaitin's constant
  • The program that calculates all construable programs in cantor triangle style - A true but useless theory of everything
Retrieved from "http://apm.bplaced.net/w/index.php?title=The_limits_and_guesses_in_math&oldid=4416"