## Mathematics=natural/universal law. Counting=human influence.

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

roydop
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

### Mathematics=natural/universal law. Counting=human influence.

Is mathematics a completely arbitrary system?

I take it to be that mathematics is not created by humans, but discovered. Is this agreeable?

If both of the above are true, then the action of counting is a man-made construct. Can we all take this as a step and move forward from here?

p.s. I would really really really appreciate if you took this journey with me, as long as you are able.

anne
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2019 1:26 am

### Re: Mathematics=natural/universal law. Counting=human influence.

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf

1 is a finite number it stops
A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157
A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop
when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way
1 is an integer a whole number
0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number
0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number
when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction

Mathematics by ending in contradiction your classical logic proves you can prove anything in maths ie Fermat's last theorem or disprove Fermat's last theorem

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Mathematics=natural/universal law. Counting=human influence.

anne wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:44 am

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf

1 is a finite number it stops
A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157
A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop
when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way
1 is an integer a whole number
0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number
0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number
when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction

Mathematics by ending in contradiction your classical logic proves you can prove anything in maths ie Fermat's last theorem or disprove Fermat's last theorem
This is broadly the same argument used by a number of computer scientists over the years. If the universe was deterministic it would be paralyzed.
Some entropy is needed. 1 is not 1. 1 is approximately 1

Classical computers rob us of this approximation. Quantum computers rob us of comprehension.

So the two ought to complement each other? Consistent logic ( 1 = 1 ). Paraconsistent logic ( 1 ≈ 1 ).
Down the quantum rabbit hole we go...

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
{"found_math": false, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 0, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0, "katex": 0, "math-container": 0, "wp-katex-eq": 0, "align": 0, "equation": 0, "x-ck12": 0, "texerror": 0}