The limits and guesses in math - Revision history

Apm: minor edit as math not necessarily counts as science

2024-02-11T18:23:58Z

minor edit as math not necessarily counts as science

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:23, 11 February 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{stub}}		{{stub}}
	{{speculative}}		{{speculative}}
	Even math is not ~~an absolutely exact science~~		Even math is not achieving absolute truth.
	There is no way around faith in at least a few axioms outside the proof system		There is no way around faith in at least a few axioms outside the proof system.

	Disclamer #1:		Disclamer #1:

Apm: some improvements

2021-06-01T13:01:46Z

some improvements

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:01, 1 June 2021
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Even math is not an absolutely exact science		Even math is not an absolutely exact science
	There is no way around faith in at least a few axioms outside the proof system		There is no way around faith in at least a few axioms outside the proof system

			Disclamer #1:
			* Math is the best and most formal system we have and (as it very much looks) the best and most formal system we will ever have
			* This page is not meant to undermine the faith in math and science.
			Disclaimer #2:
			* All "certainties" in this article (and anywhere else in this universe) are in the very end only certainties to the degree of practicability from experience.

			== About realizing the unprovability of fundamental axioms ==

			Here's a way how one could maybe question one of the most fundamental axioms of math:
			That every natural number has an successor.

	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?		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.		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.		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 ==		== Related ==

Apm: added * Foundations of mathematics * Philosophical topics

2021-06-01T12:53:03Z

added * Foundations of mathematics * Philosophical topics

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:53, 1 June 2021
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]]

Apm: added A true but useless theory of everything

2021-06-01T12:13:22Z

added A true but useless theory of everything

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:13, 1 June 2021
Line 20:		Line 20:
	* beauty as scale variant inhomogeneous anisotropic structures on all scales		* beauty as scale variant inhomogeneous anisotropic structures on all scales
	* 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]]

	[[Category:Philosophical]]		[[Category:Philosophical]]

Apm: improved intro block sentence

2021-05-29T21:22:45Z

improved intro block sentence

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:22, 29 May 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{stub}}		{{stub}}
	{{speculative}}		{{speculative}}
	math is not an exact science		Even math is not an absolutely exact science
	~~the necessity of~~ faith in ~~Axioms~~ outside the proof system		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?		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?

Apm: Added link to very nice new video related to the topic

2021-05-29T21:20:36Z

Added link to very nice new video related to the topic

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:20, 29 May 2021
Line 22:		Line 22:

	[[Category:Philosophical]]		[[Category:Philosophical]]

			== External links ==

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

Apm: some slight cleanups

2018-05-08T14:34:34Z

some slight cleanups

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 8 May 2018
Line 4:		Line 4:
	the necessity of faith in Axioms outside the proof system		the necessity of faith in 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]]) us even exist?		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.		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.		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.		Disclaimer: All "certainties" in this article (and anywhere else in this universe) are only certainties to the degree of practicability from experience.

Apm: /* Related */ added some related points - move some to other topics?

2015-10-03T05:23:32Z

Related: added some related points - move some to other topics?

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:23, 3 October 2015
Line 12:		Line 12:
	== Related ==		== Related ==

	* the severe limitedness of ~~pseuo~~ random number generators - inaccessibility of vast ranges		* the severe limitedness of pseudo random number generators - inaccessibility of vast ranges
	* Chaitin's constant		* Chaitin's omega constant that encodes the solution of all encodable problem descriptions
	* The program that ~~calculates~~ all construable programs in cantor triangle style - [[A true but useless theory of everything]]		* 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}}

	[[Category:Philosophical]]		[[Category:Philosophical]]

Apm: added good formulation in introsentence - merge in article instead?

2015-10-03T05:07:14Z

added good formulation in introsentence - merge in article instead?

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:07, 3 October 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{speculative}}		{{speculative}}
	math is not an exact science		math is not an exact science
			the necessity of faith in 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]]) us even exist?		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]]) us even exist?

Apm: category + speculative

2015-10-02T18:29:40Z

category + speculative

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:29, 2 October 2015
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]]