🧵 bogus limits
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 06:08:57 UTC No. 16495928
im almost finished with calc and seriously wtf are limits?
>sequence of natural numbers
>keep getting closer
>but never any biggest natural number
>never any closer to infinity
is this seriously what counts for rigor in math? inb4 brainlet: i got over 100% on all my calc exams, especially product rule and chain rule, and I can do the proofs for why they work in a few lines. but the rationale for why limits work obviously lacks any serious footing.
obviously derivatives make no sense in this formulation either. you may as well have dy/dx = 0/0 as things stand. the natural numbers represent a stagnation and formless purgatory for numbers, driving sensible quantities ever never closer to annihilation. It is just because infinity is a contradiction that it is an infinite process, unrolling endlessly in time and in space.
is the true knowledge of nature, the infinity of knowable matter composed of the purely finite things, the infinity of thought which knows the absolute, composed of an infinite number of finite human minds working side by side and successively at this infinite knowledge? how can we use this rational infinity to save calculus?
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:19:56 UTC No. 16495981
notice the word and concept of infinity don't appear anywhere in the definition of a limit.
limits just establish that there is a relationship between the tolerance of a function's output and its input. if such a relationship exists, you can ask for any non-zero tolerance, and know what ranges of input guarantee that tolerance.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:05:35 UTC No. 16496009
>>16495928
Hey! Just came across this thread, wanted to leave a few thoughts - hope you don't mind!
So, I think that the whole idea of limits has really been debunked. There is no way you can say what a function "approaches" without such an approach point existing. "f(x) approaches y as x approaches a" what does that even mean, approaches? Gets arbitrarily close to? But f(x) never touches y, it's never "on top of" y. So how can you say with certainty it approaches y? It could get really close and land on top of something really close to y, but not actually on y.
Anyway, OP, thanks for the post! I really agree with a lot of what you said, and I think you make great points.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 12:00:39 UTC No. 16496111
>>16495928
>wtf are limits?
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/
https://boxingpythagoras.com/2019/0
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 12:34:29 UTC No. 16496117
>>16495928
Filtered by the most fundamental concept in all of engineering and science.
Nana at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 12:58:42 UTC No. 16496124
>>16496009
Sir. You dropped these.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 17:32:06 UTC No. 16496341
>>16496124
Hey, thanks for the reply! Looking at the image you attached to your message, I'm assuming you're implying I need medication. I assure you, I am perfectly healthy, but thank you for your concern :)
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 21:25:43 UTC No. 16496547
>>16496341
cupcakes please
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 21:54:28 UTC No. 16496577
>>16495928
limits are just the argument of an operator.
some operations arent possible and give infinite sums.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 22:59:34 UTC No. 16496622
>>16495928
You can get mad at infinity all you want, but 0 is a number that can be approached and can be arranged in a way that it is equivalent to infinity in all cases. This is the whole point of calculus.
But you need to get the idea of calculus mapping to the real world out of your head.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 10:46:11 UTC No. 16497062
>>16496009
thanks so much bestie
>>16496577
>>16496622
infinite sums? these are limits based on the deranged unranged range of the never ever partial sum. no matter how many terms you add, no matter how close you think you're getting, this abomination of mathematics stagnates yet writhes and restlessly paces forward toward the unattainable unreachable stationary moving contradiction born of the putrid and filthy minds of idealists detached from any materialist dialectic. fuck you.
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 10:49:54 UTC No. 16497064
>>16495928
>wtf are limits
A limit is a limit.
You know how your glass can only hold a certain amount of water before you hit the limit?
What do you think that means?
Anonymous at Fri, 29 Nov 2024 17:26:49 UTC No. 16497334
Mathematicians understand limits as poorly as OP
>For an arbitrarily small bound, you attain it past some specified depth
>But also there are limits where we can't get the bound arbitrarily small
>But its still a limit
Chaitins constant is a fake "number" where, given a small enough epsilon, there is no way to supply a delta which attains that error
but then they cope and say, "acshually we don't need an explicit delta, shitlord" in complete opposition to the definition
It's no wonder OP is confused, mathematicians have sufficiently muddied the waters with their poo in the loo logic
Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 04:00:33 UTC No. 16497863
>>16497334
literally why can't you just reindex for chaitin's constant and be within delta? rich for a retarded finitist arguing in bad faith to disparage OP in any way. go read a book.