Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 17:19:36 UTC No. 16066644

>>16066633
>what is the biggest integer
23
>what happens when you apply the Successor Function to it
23+1=0

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 17:48:01 UTC No. 16066699

To play devils advocate, the biggest integer is what is found at the bounds of the material. Integers cannot go higher than what they literally cannot express. Outside the bounds you would start having to use immaterial integers. We are likely using a redacted core system which is limited in functionality.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:27:24 UTC No. 16066947

>>16066633
Euclid's geometry has a notion of "finite but extendible": there is no procedure given to construct an infinite line, but the axioms give us the ability to construct a finite straight line and extend it as much as we'd like. I don't know much about finitism (despite posting on this board), but I'd imagine an analogous notion can be developed if you don't accept the existence of infinite sets/objects/procedures.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:36:51 UTC No. 16066966

>>16066633
Imagine an infinite amount of integers right now. You can't. Infinity is just a word pointing to a concept with finite content because reality as you know it is finite. You lost the debate a few weeks ago so you let the thread die and now you hope to win against new opponents.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:12:45 UTC No. 16067035

>>16066966
This. Only the integers your computation reaches are real. Infinity is pure thought experiment territory, it has no purpose other than to entertain maths autists.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:20:26 UTC No. 16067049

>>16067035
So theoretical integers that we can't express are somehow less real than theoretical integers we can express? n+1 only makes a bigger integer when we're able to express what n is?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:25:27 UTC No. 16067057

>>16067049
Yes they aren’t real. As in: they will never appear in nature. Now if you compute them or create their equivalent in reality, they become real. But not all abstractions will be represented in reality at some point. Infinity will never become represented in reality for example, it’s useless thing to ever talk about, you do it only for fun.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:38:06 UTC No. 16067086

>>16066633
>what is the biggest integer
2147483647

a at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:00:01 UTC No. 16067127

At a certain point, the concept of integers, sequence, time, cause, effect, before, after, etc. all break down.

Mathematics, more specifically categorization, only exists in the monkey's mind, like discreteness itself; Useful analogs for lowly pursuits, but ultimately just little made up games.
You would be better off applying your energy towards sports betting.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:08:02 UTC No. 16067145

>>16067127
>Discreteness
non-discreteness is the default view of the monkey mind tho

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:09:29 UTC No. 16067148

>>16066633
>If the integers are finite, what is the biggest integer
bout tree fiddy
>and what happens when you apply the Successor Function to it?
:O idk

a at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:14:49 UTC No. 16067157

>>16067145
Non-discreteness is the world as presented to things which perceive. Things with robust arena of mind i.e. humans develop unity-breaking concepts, like "two" apples, temporarily useful metrics.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:17:34 UTC No. 16067160

>>16067157
No it works both ways. Percieving a gazillion molecules as a cloud of gas, for example. It’s just that nature itself is dicrete (particles, quanta etc).

a at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:25:41 UTC No. 16067175

>>16067160
Nature presents itself as discrete upon consideration. We feel free to break phenomena into understandable chunks, but in all likelihood the thing-in-itself is far more enigmatic, very well closer to nebulous.
I have exactly as much information as you, but also a healthy doubt in hard-won darwinian fictions about order. Look no further than the logical lab explosion that is consideration of sets. Do you think nature abides by the set? Maybe it does. We'll never know.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:27:23 UTC No. 16067341

>>16066633
So, if I understand the argument of the finitists based on this thread, it is that math is an abstraction and numbers are an abstraction, so the biggest number that exists is the biggest one we can represent physically?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:30:09 UTC No. 16067343

>>16067341
there clearly is a prime which would take more than your life to even fully consider, as in fucking read/encompass fully into a human brain.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:31:34 UTC No. 16067344

99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Cult of Passion at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:35:26 UTC No. 16067348

>>16067341
>so the biggest number that exists is the biggest one we can represent physically
Not if its encoded, becoming a type of poly-dimensional base system, pre number generation magnitude multiplyer.

https://youtu.be/FS5LKtbKxqE

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:36:09 UTC No. 16067349

>>16067343
and the number of digits could be approximated by considering full human lifespan of attention minus sleeping hours. about 80-90 years should cover it. calculate how many digits can a human process in a day, multiply by all days and you get the number of digits a human can even consider.
a more technical approach would be to somehow compute how high of a number could be stored in the neurons contained your average human brain while still allowing it to stay alive, considering no time limit. say we crack biological immortality and we have thousands of years to consider the longest possible prime our brain can store, how many digits does it have then?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:37:42 UTC No. 16067352

>>16067344
not a prime

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:38:44 UTC No. 16067355

ah shit not about primes kek

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 01:16:25 UTC No. 16067387

>>16067343
The flesh is a numberlet, so we made machines to count bigger numbers faster.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 01:18:16 UTC No. 16067389

>>16067035
Perfect example of why maths is such a awful spelling of math. "Maths autists" is the ugliest mishmash of English I've read all year.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 01:18:16 UTC No. 16067390

I thought finitists just rejected the idea of infinite sets. They don't literally think there's a biggest finite number...right?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:13:13 UTC No. 16067442

>>16066633
neither question can be answered in this universe.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:14:15 UTC No. 16067444

>>16067390
every physical system has a largest integer.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:25:22 UTC No. 16067463

>>16067444
Proof?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:27:52 UTC No. 16067466

>>16067463
I think the data storage capacity of this universe

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:32:17 UTC No. 16067470

Is this THE maidfag PhD?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:37:05 UTC No. 16067476

>>16067466
Let n be the largest possible integer that can be expressed in this universe. Then 11 in base n represents n+1 and I have just expressed it in this universe.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 02:39:11 UTC No. 16067480

>>16067049
If you're familiar with programming and the functional paradigm, this is the same has saying f(n) = n + 1, it's an abstract "function" in itself, but if you starting inputting integers it becomes concrete values

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 03:14:44 UTC No. 16067516

There are infinitely many prime numbers... prime numbers are integers.... if you can prove either of those wrong congratulations claim your nobel prize....

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 07:40:45 UTC No. 16067714

>>16067341
Devils advocate, again. If the immaterial were to send information to the material, the information would either need to be exact to how the material would process it, or be displayed through representation, and rounding/artifacts would need to occur.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:13:58 UTC No. 16067857

>>16066966
That would be a pretty valid point if people could actually imagine 10^1000 amount of individual integers, but they can't actually do that either, most people even struggle with 100 things, so its a pretty moot point.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 10:38:40 UTC No. 16067885

>>16067035
ok so how many integers are there then?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:08:18 UTC No. 16067924

>>16067057
Reality itself, the everything, is a representation of infinity.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:09:44 UTC No. 16067926

>>16067127
You literally can't bet on sports without utilizing mathematics, dipshit.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:13:27 UTC No. 16067931

>>16066966
Alright, listen up you absolute imbecile. I've seen some stupid takes in my time, but this one really takes the cake. Your post is so mind-numbingly idiotic that I'm honestly surprised you managed to string together a coherent sentence at all.
First of all, your claim that "infinity is just a word pointing to a concept with finite content" is so laughably wrong that I don't even know where to begin. Have you ever actually studied mathematics, or do you just enjoy spouting off nonsense on the internet? Infinity is a well-defined and extensively studied concept in mathematics, with a rich history and a wide range of applications. Just because your tiny little brain can't wrap itself around the idea doesn't mean it's not real.
Furthermore, your assertion that "reality as you know it is finite" is equally moronic. Have you ever heard of the concept of an infinite universe? Or the idea that there may be an infinite number of parallel universes? These are legitimate scientific theories that are being actively studied and debated by actual experts in the field. But I suppose you, in your infinite wisdom, have already figured it all out, right?
And don't even get me started on your pathetic attempt to dismiss your previous defeat in a debate. It's clear that you're just a coward who can't handle being proven wrong, so you resort to slinking away and hoping that everyone will forget about your humiliation. Well, guess what? We haven't forgotten, and we never will. Your ignorance and arrogance are on full display for everyone to see, and no amount of posturing or bravado can change that.
Your post is a steaming pile of garbage that has no place in any serious intellectual discussion. Why don't you do us all a favor and crawl back into whatever dark corner of the internet you came from, and leave the actual thinking to those of us who have more than two brain cells to rub together. You pathetic, insufferable moron.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:34:49 UTC No. 16067955

>>16067931
>infinite number of parallel universes? These are legitimate scientific theories
Lmao. I can't even. Lurk more.