View source for The limits and guesses in math

{{stub}}
{{speculative}}
 Even math is not an absolutely exact science
 There is no way around faith in at least a few axioms outside the proof system

Does a number which is not representable by the means that our universe provide ([[big bang as spontaneous demixing event|amount of demixing in the big bang]]) 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 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 pseudo random number generators - inaccessibility of vast ranges
* Chaitin's omega constant that encodes the solution of all encodable problem descriptions
* The halting problem - The program that executes all construable programs in cantor triangle style - [[A true but useless theory of everything]]
* Kurt Gödels incompleteness theorem
* perfect order perfect chaos and interesting structure in between
* what distinguishes interesting entropy states from bland entropy states?
* beauty as scale variant inhomogeneous anisotropic structures on all scales
* Helmholz free energy {{WikipediaLink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_free_energy}}
* [[A true but useless theory of everything]]
* [[Foundations of mathematics]]
* [[Philosophical topics]]

[[Category:Philosophical]]

== External links ==

* Youtube: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeQX2HjkcNo This is Math's Fatal Flaw] – by Veritasium – 2021-05-22