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

From apm
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 21: Line 21:
 
* Helmholz free energy {{WikipediaLink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_free_energy}}
 
* Helmholz free energy {{WikipediaLink|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_free_energy}}
 
* [[A true but useless theory of everything]]
 
* [[A true but useless theory of everything]]
 +
* [[Foundations of mathematics]]
 +
* [[Philosophical topics]]
  
 
[[Category:Philosophical]]
 
[[Category:Philosophical]]

Revision as of 14:53, 1 June 2021

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.
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 (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

External links