Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:59:40 UTC No. 16160816

>>16160527

infinite universe glitch

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 16:33:37 UTC No. 16160852

>>16160527
all these science concepts are just 5D chess methods of frauding taxpayer money

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 16:37:29 UTC No. 16160855

>>16160527
>people said the same of quantum physics
>today's material science, including your smartphone, relies heavily on it
Your point?

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:02:54 UTC No. 16160874

>>16160527
Me: "Right is right and wrong is wrong"
Mathemeticians: "An infinitely close approximation is indistinguishable from the actual thing"

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:04:22 UTC No. 16160877

>>16160855
>your smartphone relies heavily on it
How?

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:43:52 UTC No. 16160917

>>16160877
don't worry about it

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:59:16 UTC No. 16160946

>>16160852
They do this shit for free.

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 20:57:13 UTC No. 16161289

>>16160874
You: Hurr-durr I don't get it therefore it's wrong

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 21:21:05 UTC No. 16161310

>>16161289
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.

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 21:44:06 UTC No. 16161326

>>16160816
fucking KEK

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 21:45:24 UTC No. 16161327

>>16160874
why did you big black bar out the name of this redditor?

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 21:47:36 UTC No. 16161333

>>16161327
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 4chan culture is?

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 21:48:59 UTC No. 16161338

>>16161289
>>16161327
>>16160874
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.

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 21:56:04 UTC No. 16161347

>>16161338
I am someone who is able to learn by example. Thanks for the guidance.

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:14:38 UTC No. 16161394

>>16161310
So, you don't get it

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:20:42 UTC No. 16161410

>>16161394
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.

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:24:09 UTC No. 16161418

>>16161410
Infinity.

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 23:02:01 UTC No. 16161463

>>16161418
Infinity doesn't exist.

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 23:03:28 UTC No. 16161465

>>16161463
>>16161394

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 23:13:17 UTC No. 16161477

>>16161418
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?

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 23:15:01 UTC No. 16161482

>>16161410
it's essentially the nyquist sampling theorem, except we don't know what the sampling rate is so we just spitball "infinity"

Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 23:20:35 UTC No. 16161488

>>16161477
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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:23:24 UTC No. 16161667

>>16160874
>filtered by epsilon-delta
never gonna make it...

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:27:36 UTC No. 16161669

>>16161310
>the essential and fundamental inaccuracy
thank God for making finitists, your life is certainly a good joke

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:28:43 UTC No. 16161670

>>16161477
>infinitesimal. The counterpoint of infinity
>The counterpoint of infinity
which one?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:32:08 UTC No. 16161672

>>16161488
>non-negative number
ah, i see ow where the retard 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

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:37:37 UTC No. 16161680

>>16160855
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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:39:53 UTC No. 16161681

>>16161680
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_tunneling_microscope

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:42:46 UTC No. 16161685

>>16161681
Very cool! Now excuse me, I need Newton's help to construct this bridge.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:33:28 UTC No. 16161945

>>16160527
>"none of this exists it's all fake math schizobabble"

many such cases

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:23:41 UTC No. 16162016

>>16161685
You don't have to build it to jump off it tranny

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:04:44 UTC No. 16162163

>>16160855
quantum physics has had empirical evidence very soon after it was first taken seriously theoretically

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:06:26 UTC No. 16162166

>>16161667
>filtered by NSA
never gonna make it...

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:12:27 UTC No. 16162173

>>16161681
Voltage gaps are not a new concept and do not rely on quantum tunnelling

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 13:06:28 UTC No. 16162221

>>16161945
Yoooo wtf

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 13:06:40 UTC No. 16162222

>>16161488
>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 >>16161310 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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 13:07:41 UTC No. 16162224

>>16161667
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."

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 13:09:59 UTC No. 16162226

>>16161669
You seem to have the attitude of a righteous person but not the knowledge or expertise.

>>16161670
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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 13:27:06 UTC No. 16162243

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?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 13:27:08 UTC No. 16162244

>>16161680
>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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 13:36:10 UTC No. 16162253

>>16162222
>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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 13:58:19 UTC No. 16162266

>>16162253
>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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:05:23 UTC No. 16162278

>>16160877
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

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:17:59 UTC No. 16162303

>>16162278
For real?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:00:42 UTC No. 16162337

>>16162266
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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:13:04 UTC No. 16162353

>>16162303
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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:32:16 UTC No. 16162449

>>16160527
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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:00:36 UTC No. 16162474

>>16162337
>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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:01:38 UTC No. 16162476

>>16162353
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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:37:22 UTC No. 16162532

>>16162449
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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:58:54 UTC No. 16162554

>>16162449
>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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:13:04 UTC No. 16162594

>>16162474
>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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:19:50 UTC No. 16162606

>>16162594
>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) bitches 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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:56:49 UTC No. 16162668

>>16162476
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.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:57:46 UTC No. 16162908

>>16162668
thanks anon