[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 19 KB, 428x368, fc137b1534d9f16acd85edf4075a5353.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12400922 No.12400922 [Reply] [Original]

>uncomputable number

>> No.12400928

Are those numbers such that they have no algorithm that can construct them?

>> No.12401723
File: 21 KB, 259x194, d06cb17a9ac1787d5b9f1f2d759b1a81.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12401723

>irrational number

>> No.12401731
File: 378 KB, 250x265, tumblr_p2hh5uS5o71v6bs4yo7_250.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12401731

>imaginary numbers

>> No.12401735

>>12400928
exactly. literally just random digits lmao whats the point

>> No.12401748

>>12401735
Sounds as retarded as imaginary numbers.
>>12401723
I love this guy

>> No.12401759
File: 8 KB, 248x250, 1595223853359.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12401759

>computable theory

>> No.12401766

>>12401731
>>12401748
there's nothing wrong with imaginary numbers you fucking retard

>> No.12401776
File: 88 KB, 1200x675, DT_rql_VoAYP4Os.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12401776

>>12401766
I'm not falling for your bullshit.
Allow me to tell you about the J set.

>> No.12401778

What's wrong with imaginary numbers

>> No.12401786

>>12401776
you know anime was invented by the J's to control our sexuality and stop us from breeding

>> No.12401788

>>12401778
when have you ever used one to calculate a real life problem?

and don't say "they use it all the time in engineering/physics" I mean YOU personally in REAL life not some made up physics problem

>> No.12401790

>>12401788
>I mean YOU personally in REAL life not some made up physics problem
what the fuck does that have to do with anything

>> No.12401791

>>12401778
>hurr durr x is not an element of R durr such that x^2 = -1
maximum cope.
allow me to tell you about Hitomi's number 1/0. it's not an element of R because it's not defined it R this is true and generally agreed. It satisfies the property that x*0 = 1.
but technically that's a principal zero, it's actually +/-1.
That's the Hitomi set.
>>12401786
Don't care. The only think stopping me from breeding is my marriage to math. If a woman wanted to breed with me she should present herself then fuck off. Though I can't grantee I will be paying much attention during the commerce because I'll be busy thinking about numbers.

>> No.12401793

>>12401788
I study pure math, so I can't give an example of myself using it for an engineering application, but electrical engineers use them all the time.

>> No.12401799
File: 125 KB, 250x265, tumblr_p2hh5uS5o71v6bs4yo6_250.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12401799

>>12401790
Imagicucks already crying.
how much more do you have to embarrass yourself because you just give up?

>> No.12401802

>>12401791
There's a theory of wheels if you're interested
https://www2.math.su.se/reports/2001/11/2001-11.pdf

>> No.12401806

>>12401793
>>12401790

prove it's not just made up then. Think of a practical use for these supposed "numbers" that you use in every day life. That's right, you can't, all you can do is bring up the "engineers use it" coping method

>> No.12401814

>>12401799
>asking the math majors to give an example of when they did a real life engineer problem
youre just retard

>>12401806
>Think of a practical use for these supposed "numbers" that you use in every day life.
again, what does that have to do with anything
no one cares about your boring every day life kys

>> No.12401815

>>12401802
pretty cool, but unreadable.

>> No.12401822

>>12401815
What about it unreadable?

>> No.12401825

>>12401814
nobody cares about your made up numbers if you can't give a single justification for making them up

>> No.12401827

>>12401806
Do you not personally know any electrical engineers?
You literally need complex numbers to represent AC voltage.

>> No.12401829

>>12401822
All of the notation.

>> No.12401830

>>12401791
>It satisfies the property that x*0 = 1.
no it doesnt, multiplication is defined over the real numbers, you cant use the same symbol for this magic new number since it is not real multiplication

1 = x * 0 = x * (0 * 0) = (x * 0) * 0 = 1 * 0 = 0

you cant quotient R[x] by (0x - 1) and get anything besides the zero ring
you can quotient R[x] by (x^2 + 1) and get an extension of R

>> No.12401832

>>12401825
>you cant mention these justifications
>hah, now you cant make justifications

>> No.12401836

>>12401830
>you cant use the same symbol for this magic new number since it is not real multiplication
THE COPE HOLY SHIT
I already explained x isn't a real number.
HAVE SEX IMAGICEL.

>> No.12401838

>>12401827
>look on back of batteries
>all of the voltages are in real numbers

where are the imaginary voltages then? just part of some sweaty engineer's imagination? I've never seen something move an imaginary distance

>> No.12401840

>>12401814
I want it geometrically.

>> No.12401844

>>12401838
You're an idiot or a troll, and probably the former unfortunately.

>> No.12401849

>>12401844
>lose debate in epic fashion
>y-your a troll!

cope brainlet

>> No.12401856

>>12401836
>I already explained x isn't a real number.
i was agreeing with you, fucking moron

>> No.12401859

>>12401849
I gave you an example.
You literally don't even understand complex numbers nor any form of engineering.

>> No.12401862

>>12401859
it should be easy for you to explain where these imaginary voltages exist in real life then, rather than just saying "engineers use them" as if that means anything.

>> No.12401865

>>12401862
You can not make accurate calculations on how electricity will behave without using complex numbers. I don't know why you're seething about this.

>> No.12401867

>>12401865
>You can not make accurate calculations on how electricity will behave without using complex numbers.

just throw out all the results where you need the square root of -1. Done

>> No.12401868

>>12401867
You can not make accurate predictions about how electricity will behave without complex numbers.

>> No.12401877

>>12401868
>accurate
=/= true
it only means successful.

>> No.12401879

>>12400928
No algorithm in a classical Turing machine.

>> No.12401883

>>12401791
Where can i find more about this Hoe number. I really enjoyed algebra.

>> No.12401884

>>12401868
sure you can. Just because your retarded made up numbers allow you to take shortcuts doesn't mean they actually exist, it's just a math trick. It's literally the same thing as physicists making up dark matter to explain something which has a perfectly logical explanation otherwise.

>> No.12401886

>>12401879
The fuck?

>> No.12401889

>>12401883
Hitomi's number.
I have a thread about it here
>>12399922

>> No.12401891

>>12401862
We use those imaginary numbers because we are lazy. Any other tuple would work but be much uglier. Not as ugly as your waifu obv

>> No.12401906

>>12401791
>Hitomi set
I found nothing on the web, only gooks. Show me the way.

>> No.12401910

>>12401802
>why invent the Wheel?

This is /sci/ humour.

>> No.12401927

What about un-constructable numbers? Numbers which cannot be finitely described?

Wouldn't the mere definition make them non-existent?

>> No.12401938

>>12401886
Do you think that mathematicians worked out that classical Turing machines could not do this universe of things and just said "oh boy, I think this is the end of the road, now I'll have to study topology"? No, they said "well, whut if", an boom, supertasks. That's why all areas have this sea of hierarchies of God-knows-what with the name of mathematicians you have never heard before in your life.

>> No.12401942

>>12401906
I invented it.
it's just Hitomi's number "1/0" times a real: J {..., -L/0, ..., 1, ..., L/0, ...}

>> No.12401950

>>12401927
That's an interesting puzzle. What do you fully mean by "describe it"?

>> No.12401955

>>12401942
Can you imagine if I take this at heart and mention it to my colleagues, without knowing you probably named it after an anime girl?

>> No.12401958

>>12401950
I was kinda just shitposting, but lets say: "the set of numbers x such that there does not exist a finite number of propositions P which describe x"
So, basically, you would need an infinite number of conditions to describe the set. But, that itself is a proposition. Are there any sets for which there are an infinite number of propositions?

>>12401942
>>12401955
If you play around with 1/0 you end up getting some promising results, but associativity makes the whole thing collapse under its own weight, at least from the times I've played with it.

>> No.12401969

>>12401958
>associativity makes the whole thing collapse under its own weight, at least from the times I've played with it.
associativity makes a lot of things collapse under their own weight, which is the reason we have to define algebraic numbers as being this weird retarded extension of the rationals. Otherwise we could just have exponentiation be a fundamental binary operation on a ring and get algebraic numbers (solutions to polynomial equations) for free.

>> No.12401973

>>12401955
I made it as a shit post against imagifags. If imaginary numbers are real Hitomi's numbers are real.
Also scientifically speaking why am I in love with a drawing?

>> No.12401985

>>12401958
Would it be acceptableif I created an algorithm that generates infinites prepositions, or the algorithm itself is a preposition?

>> No.12402330

>>12401973
>If imaginary numbers are real Hitomi's numbers are real.

>> No.12402698

Last "practical" use was probably something involving numpy.fft; the output is complex numbers.