you studying this:. everybody studing this:. mathematicians:. sane guy at the end:

you studying this:
everybody studing this:
mathematicians:
sane guy at the end:
"none of this exists it's all fake math schizobabble"

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    infinite universe glitch

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    all these science concepts are just 5D chess methods of frauding taxpayer money

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >people said the same of quantum physics
    >today's material science, including your smartphone, relies heavily on it
    Your point?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >your smartphone relies heavily on it
      How?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        don't worry about it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the chips that power devices like your pc or phone have to account for quantum tunneling because transistors got so small that electrons teleport through them

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          For real?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            your CPU power is nerfed because part of it is dedicated to fixing tunneling errors. so instead of enjoying that extra performance it's lost to error-correction.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where can I learn more about this? I like pop science youtubes and stuff like that, any youtube creators or articles you recommend on this topic? That's fascinating and I've never heard it before.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://semiengineering.com/quantum-effects-at-7-5nm/
            they are not an on/off thing, they happen more or less. when that shit happens it can corrupt data, so it has to be corrected, which takes from CPU performance.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            thanks anon

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Material science is still overwhelmingly dependent on classical physics. Quantum mumbo jumbo is still not accepted. There are no singularities, no wormholes, no white holes, no parallel universes.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Very cool! Now excuse me, I need Newton's help to construct this bridge.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't have to build it to jump off it troony

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Voltage gaps are not a new concept and do not rely on quantum tunnelling

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Material science is still overwhelmingly dependent on classical physics. Quantum mumbo jumbo is still not accepted.
        The entire notion of discrete band gaps has no equivalent in continuous classical physics.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      quantum physics has had empirical evidence very soon after it was first taken seriously theoretically

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Me: "Right is right and wrong is wrong"
    Mathemeticians: "An infinitely close approximation is indistinguishable from the actual thing"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You: Hurr-durr I don't get it therefore it's wrong

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I get it. It's wrong. See related. You see how that's obviously not accurate in the beginning? Even though you make the problem of inaccuracy small, smaller, surpassingly SMALL...you've not resolved the essential and fundamental inaccuracy. You've just made it infinitesimal. The problem doesn't disappear merely because you make it small. At best, calculus like pic related is a workable approximation - but if you say it's exactly correct then I might scootch over so I don't get caught in the shitstorm the gods of rectitude send for you.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So, you don't get it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Explain to me how causing something to become smaller causes it to disappear rather than being merely "very small". You can't without saying what's untrue on the face of it. When it comes to integration, it will never be an absolute description of reality if its fundament remains "Take what is incorrect and make the inaccuracy smaller". It will only, at best, be an inoffensive approximation.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Infinity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Infinity doesn't exist.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So, you don't get it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Counterpoint: infinitesimal. The counterpoint of infinity. Just because it's so very small doesn't mean it's non-existent. Why don't you know that?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The smallest non-negative number is zero.

            If you have a "small" non-negative number that is demonstrably smaller than EVERY other positive number, then it is zero.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >non-negative number
            ah, i see ow where the moron got it wrong, he means positive numbers, not non-negative numbers, hope this helps bring the discussion to a better place, if not from changing his mind(which i think will be impossible) then from a more "proper" line of discourse

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The smallest non-negative number is zero.
            If that's the case then the statement "The largest non-positive number is zero" is also correct. But I don't think that's actually relevant. Because if something approaches zero asymptotically then that means it never actually reaches zero. Which means that it is certainly not zero. If you take leave of your senses at the goal you fail to be a commendable or admirable fellow. Don't lose at the finish line.

            The gif here

            I get it. It's wrong. See related. You see how that's obviously not accurate in the beginning? Even though you make the problem of inaccuracy small, smaller, surpassingly SMALL...you've not resolved the essential and fundamental inaccuracy. You've just made it infinitesimal. The problem doesn't disappear merely because you make it small. At best, calculus like pic related is a workable approximation - but if you say it's exactly correct then I might scootch over so I don't get caught in the shitstorm the gods of rectitude send for you.

            shows plainly that integration is no absolutely correct, it only approaches absolute precision. In the gif you can see that it

            >If you have a "small" non-negative number that is demonstrably smaller than EVERY other positive number
            Oh I see. You think that integrating while approaching infinity leaves you with some defininte, defined number after which there is no smaller number. That's actually the exact opposite of the meaning of infinity (inifinity is that which is unbounded, undefined, without limit). I see now how you arrived at the wrong answer.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >In the gif you can see that it
            Hmm... That gif didn't last infinitely long though, did it? It stopped after a finite number of steps.

            Infinity is unbounded, without limit. It never stops.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >something becomes literally zero if you make it small enough
            You're wrong and I can't make you understand that. You're not applying your mind rationally enough for understand that you're wrong.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your fundamental misunderstanding of this concept is embarrassing.
            This is literally the first lesson in any course of calculus.
            You can not have had a mathematical education past grade school.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Your fundamental misunderstanding of this concept is embarrassing.
            Can you explain it without making statements which must merely be accepted as fact (because you say them)?
            >This is literally the first lesson in any course of calculus.
            Something is not true merely because a non-zero amount of people say it's true.
            >You can not have had a mathematical education past grade school.
            I have and I've also been aware and a rightly critical thinker that entire time as well.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I have and I've also been aware and a rightly critical thinker that entire time as well.
            Funny how your "critical thinking" only applies outward.
            The (largely incorrect) thoughts and ideas you've come up with yourself seem to get an automatic pass, and you treat them as gospel truth.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Funny how your "critical thinking" only applies outward.
            I reckon you thought "This would be a good comeback" and just went with it despite no even knowing who I am as a person (with reference to introspection or circumspection). I hate that for you: the journey that will make for you, being so un-contemplative.
            >The (largely incorrect) thoughts and ideas you've come up with yourself seem to get an automatic pass, and you treat them as gospel truth.
            That's untrue. I shiver at the thought of your intimate relationships having to withstand your thoughtless and aggressive presence and everything that comes from that.

            I know someone else who just throws shit at the wall with their words in the hopes that something will stick and they therefore gain advantage. They're literally one of the dumbest (but calculated and hateful) b***hes I know.

            It's too bad that you're the person I'm talking to. I actually wanted to talk with someone who was earnestly engaging with what I was saying and the ideas therein/thereupon.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >infinitesimal. The counterpoint of infinity
            >The counterpoint of infinity
            which one?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it's essentially the nyquist sampling theorem, except we don't know what the sampling rate is so we just spitball "infinity"

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the essential and fundamental inaccuracy
          thank God for making finitists, your life is certainly a good joke

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You seem to have the attitude of a righteous person but not the knowledge or expertise.

            >infinitesimal. The counterpoint of infinity
            >The counterpoint of infinity
            which one?

            They are one in the same. That which is unbounded, undefined, and without limit in terms of largeness is infinity.That which is unbounded, undefined, and without limit in terms of smallness is infinitesimal. Important to the point I'm making is that infinitesimal is something that is non-zero.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        why did you big black bar out the name of this redditor?

        https://i.imgur.com/ccPShbH.png

        Me: "Right is right and wrong is wrong"
        Mathemeticians: "An infinitely close approximation is indistinguishable from the actual thing"

        HERE it was Gamingkitty1 that said this.

        It is IMPORTANT to cite your sources and properly make references in academia. This is to discourage fraudulent commendations.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I am someone who is able to learn by example. Thanks for the guidance.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why did you big black bar out the name of this redditor?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I've heard of mods or whatever being arbitrary about banning people and I couldn't remember if that was a bannable thing. I figured I was already on edging toward an arbitrary suspension for posting reddit.

        Btw, did you guys notice how ridiculous and insular IQfy culture is?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >filtered by epsilon-delta
      never gonna make it...

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I was filtered by logic and proportion and ration. It's easy to say and easy to understand: "If any part of it is incorrect, then it is not absolutely correct."

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"none of this exists it's all fake math schizobabble"

    many such cases

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yoooo wtf

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what is it about penrose diagrams that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
    is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make penrose diagrams so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is this prevalent misconception in modern "science" that if there is a math for it then it must exist in reality.
    Like if there weren't literally infinitely many perfectly consistent possible mathematical theories for the law of physics that have absolutely nothing in common with reality.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Compounding that problem is the fact that so much of this theoretical math is built on stacks and stacks of assumptions and presuppositions that everyone just takes to be true for no reason.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There is this prevalent misconception in modern "science" that if there is a math for it then it must exist in reality.
      There is a prevalent misconception in mainstream math that that which is infinitely close to a number is meaningfully considered to be that very number itself. And I hate the journey and letdown that represents for earnest mathematicians.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *