# Crisis in the Foundation of Mathematics | Infinite Series

Skip to content
# Crisis in the Foundation of Mathematics | Infinite Series

##
100 thoughts on “Crisis in the Foundation of Mathematics | Infinite Series”

### Leave a Reply

Career In Forensic Science

I was terrified when I first read about this years ago, and in a way I still am.

About randomness, my professor once noted there is a few people that after 10k hours training did get to generate random numbers. But it really requires extensive training.

She does a lot with her hands

Integers seem to be another name for natural numbers.

And then, what is logic founded on? Probably the concept of order and structure. But philosophers use to take logic for granted, and you never read this notion in philosophical literature.

I always come back to this channel. Really love those math videos ?

Why is everyone talking about turtles?

Happiness = Reality – Expectation

I like numbers

Waddya mean math has no foundation? Bull. You got the pyramid upside down.

This just furthers my delusion that everything is subjective.

TRUE and FALSE – that is the very foundation of logic. From that, we can build circuits that performs mathematical computation.

We are free to make any definitions we like. These defs are jusr word and symbol salad.

_yes yes is crisis in mathematics_sign transsinphinite number theory_archaix lord sith

I think the paradox is solvable.

So let's name the "set of all sets that are not themselves" "n". What I want to propose now is that n can be simultaneously part of n and exist outside of n. For this we'll need two separate notions:

1. The paradox's issue is that the number it generates is seemingly variable. This means that the paradox even if still existent is a non-issue as long as we can explain this variation within the realm of numbers and math (without inventing new rules)

2. N has a double notion within the paradox, one in which it encompasses n and one in which it doesn't, however they provoke one another, thus making it impossible for them to exist separately.

So, now let's say for a moment that N is not a part of itself, that would make it a part of itself, thus making it so that n+n=n, BUT n+n+n=n and n+n+n+…+n=n. The first instinct is to see this as (X-1)n=0, which would make n=0. Issue is we know some sets that are not part of themselves must exist, in fact most of them are. As a result, the number must be positive and different from 0, this is, n>0. So what number could possibly fit? Well, maybe not a number, but a numerical value called "infinite positive".

Infinite positive is basically the notion of an ever-growing number, and the thing about it is that it works within our equation. +infinite++infinite=+infinite. Infinite is a variable notion, ever-variable in fact, but so is the "set of all sets that are not themselves", as every separate set not contained within itself generates a new "set of all sets that are not themselves" which in turn does contain it, thus increasing the extension perpetually.

These math people need to get out and get a real job! But its a great gig if you can find people to to pay you to do it…

Randomness comes from entropy

Since subscribing to your Chanel, I find myself picuring you explaining thing to me when I study maths for an examn or had to proove soume engineering theory mathematicly. You restored my love for maths! Thank you for that!

OR IS IT TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN LOL I caught that I see you.

i know a few stuff that aren't random: exponents: powers of n and perfect powers and fibonacci sequence.

Warren Ambrose called all this stuff a "can of worms". Lol you start with a consensus point of view and some real mathematics. How about an ultrafilter and hyperreals?

Wa huh?

Is it correct to say if I had a number system not in base 10, but in base Pi that Pi would be rational?

The answer is 6

I learned that the natural numbers don’t include 0, rather that the whole numbers do

She keeps saying pyramid, but that's an inverted pyramid, no?

I just want to give her a hug.

Let there be 'x'….thus the world begins and all confusion….

Why tf am I watching this I already figured this out. I'm in calculus 4 and differential equations.

Gödel likes this video.

Turtles. Definitely turtles.

The basics of it seems to be axioms, definitions, and undefined terms. Axioms are something that cannot be provide just something we assume to be true.

Math's was all good but one day algebra came everything spoiled

This definition for negative numbers is atrocious.

For the website mentioned in the endnotes, the way I beat (got a 50% guess score for large set) it was by randomly selecting large even numbers and if it was divisible by four, D otherwise F: this worked really well in letting me select a number an outcome randomly by obfuscating the outcome from my brain during the selection process: until of course my brain picked up on things well enough to know whether my number would translate to f or d before the number was fully generated.

My anecdotal conclusion is that creating random outcomes is easier if you overload your brain's pattern recognition: the catch is that doing so will make the generation process slower.

I quit the video at 1:03

Jokes on you. There is no spoon.

I started adding up an infinite series. I'm not done yet.

What about Peano's Postulates?

Natural number does not include zero! Integer does.

counting is the base.

The foundation of math is not logic, it is the observation that 1+1=2. Even logic is fundamentally built on that observat

44%! take that!

i don't like 0 considered as natural number

Women and Math. ?

She is a kick in the balls of anyone who dares to say "they cannot".

Deal with it. ?

Is anything possible in an infinite universe? And if so is it possible to have an infinite straight line?

The set of natural numbers doesn't include 0. Natural numbers start from 1. Whole numbers include 0 and natural numbers

So where's the crisis? and whats ur definition of crisis? Cuz it sure ain't mine…

___yes yes ….sign transsinphinite number theory ….1/3+1/3+1/3=3/3=1 ad 1/3=0,(3) and 0,(3)+0,(3)+0,(3)=0,(9) result 1=0,(9) …it s error numeric callcul…in reality 0,(9)=0,(9)9 with n indice period =infinti and n-1 period …the language nume give transsinphinite number theory is for and because united mathematic numeric operative is situated after inphiniti period…if not accepted transsinphinite number theory is not definit assimptotouse and theorem of darbouxe becam invalited and result imposibille definit derivat ad integrall and analisis mathematics becam insolvable think s innacepted for science mathmatics …the transsinphinite number theory is following for definit space and subspace for for continuumm space time for music for programing corect soft computer and radio and tv hd for callculus financial and etc etc___archaix lord

00:59 Remember that the natural numbers are all the counting numbers, usually taken to include 0, so 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on.

The title scared me. I was like "Wait, what? Is math itself in danger somehow?"

Sorry. I have and use matrices with variables, it is algebraic matrices, and even other structures.

They may started with numbers but that is a special case.

#adastra #iamhyperian #projectfallenstar

Real Analysis.

Yikes https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/threelly-ai-for-youtube/dfohlnjmjiipcppekkbhbabjbnikkibo

Hi

G

Gr

Gre

Grea

Great

Great j

Great jo

Great job

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCLoo2mkhq9oFNlGqwqRW2bA/feed

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCLoo2mkhq9oFNlGqwqRW2bA/fee

Well there's obviously not going to be a foundation. Math is fictional.

It's a shame you simply glossed over Godel's incompleteness theorem- profound and incredibly important to the Hilbert program to establish foundations

8:13 is the wrong principia mathematica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica

Is there a bottom?

0<1

0.4

0.41

0.414

0.4141

0.41414

But even logic is built from something else.

I gave this video a like. However, I feel that some of the concepts here deserved better than the somewhat perfunctory treatment they got. I know U guys can do better! 😉 tavi.

Speak with confidence!!!!!

If every real number is a cut between two rationals. How can there be so many more real numbers than rationals?

Its a groundless network, just like any language.

To pee or not to pee.

Just stop waving your hands, gestures are overused only by low IQ people to conpensate their speech communication

Too cute mathematics

0 isn't natural number

It looks like they pulled up an image of Newton’s Principia, not Russel’s & Whitehead’s lol.

Patterns is random phenomenon too. Base of mathematics maybe is mind, and acsiom what mind exist is true becouse it are, of fact that we know what acsiom exists, we know existace, and it is number I, some 1.

By proper experiment, pi=3.14159 is incorrect. Series is not the correct method to figure out arc lengths. After the perimeter is devided into tiny angles/fractions, the triangle's base line, sinX, tanX and even the "L" AKA [ sinX + (1-cosX) ] will approach the same pi value AKA the trangle's base line length.

Please create a video about the definition of "pretopological space".

Technically, ZFC is an infinite collection of axioms. The assumption that ZFC can be replaced by a finite number of axioms leads to a contradiction.

The real crisis is that Infite Series ended.

Brouwer solved this problem of "what is at the bottom of pyramid" with his intuitionism. Mathematics is creation of human mind and the laws which it is build upon are "intuitions" which are obviously true based on perceived self-evident facts about existence and the way consciousness interacts with reality. These basic laws are just things the could not be otherwise because if it was, we would get nowhere. It's possible to use different sets of axioms and even sometims use higher level concepts (like line in Eclid's synthetic as oposed to analytic geometry) and build further mathematics from this point.

What do you think of this story, 32 digits of pi in an ancient vedas. https://www.indiadivine.org/value-pi-upto-32-decimals-rig-veda/. I saw a way of looking at it in Laws of Form. The "distinction" …. are you "in" or "out" of the set boundary.

At the end of the day.. someone will always hate it after class..

I wonder if this leads back to Godel's incompleteness theorem.

Try mentioning Godel to a particle physicist, the next time they mention the quest for a GUT.

Bertrand Russell was actually on the Germans' lock-up list for after they conquered Britain (I know, I know. They didn't succeed. But they still made the plans). Maybe they were pissed at him for disagreeing with their boy Gottlob.

True whole mathematics is truly too simple (to clever school students level mainly), but what actually does complicate it to turn into many huge businesses and useless branches that always split the human so innocent minds are actually those many alleged most historical and living genius academic professional mathematicians themselves

Simply because they had never tried to really understand the oldest and most famous historical unsolved problems raised strictly by the ancient Greek (few thousands of years back) and so, unfortunately, up to our current dates so deliberately for the sake of that baseless and huge volume of so unnecessary business mathematics, for never wanting to understand first the following three proven facts about the three unsolved Greek problems (in very and many elementary methods most suitable for school kids)

1) No circle ever exists, but regular

EXISTINGpolygons with many sides that seems like a circle to the innocent human mindsdue to the very limited ability of visibility of the human eyes and minds as well where a compass and straight unmarked edge can't truly construct a circle, nor any other tool can (by any means), since it doesn't exist physically, conceptionally and theoretically as well

2)

Pi*, therefore, is never any constant number, but truly a varying real constructible number belonging solely for regular existing polygons where the regular existing polygon with a maximum number of sides never exists, hence the well-known REAL number *Pifor circles is, in fact, No existing real number on the real number line as an exact existing and well described distance , where it follows immediately the impossibility of squaring the circle BY ANY MEANS, hence, (problem one Solved)3)

Piis actually an exact existing angle and never any real number, where two-thirds of the well-known angles in both old and modern mathematics never exist, like all integer degrees that aren't divisible by 3, and angles like (Pi/7, Pi/9, Pi/11, …) named as non-constructible angles in modern math, where this only explains and proof the impossibility of trisecting the arbitrary angles LIKE (60 Degrees) (BY ANY MEANS), hence (problem 2 Solved)

4) The real cube root of two denoted by $sqrt[3]{2}$ or [2^{1/3}] IS never any existing real number on the real number line and hence impossible to exactly construct (by any means) since it never exists, but was merely a human-invented like a number, which explains and proof the impossibility of doubling the cube problem, where those old unsolved and most famous historical problems raised strictly by the Greeks had been completely solved

There are indeed many more THRILLING issues that are too shocking to hear about from an amateur Civil Engineer, and they were all published PUBLICALLY on sci. math immoderate site or SE and Quora (since I'm not a professional mathematician beside those issues are generally forbidden and fought to talk about their facts in any official place for mathematics by the Professionals academic mathematicians since they contradict their own common global education)

At any case, and for future uprising researchers to verify the facts about any of my many PUBLISHED claims, one of my main public profiles at this link, where one (if interested) can search the suitable topics raised strictly by myself in my profile

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!profile/sci.math/APn2wQc6Nm-moZ-ytlbuL3jhGbMgub4xj3tyrWvTKOfJGYuut-WbyhFBV06rT-9BkhR3R16XqllA

I hope to keep visible my comment please for near future historical documentation purposes and many benefits of others as well

Thanks and Regards

Bassam Karzeddin

Oct. 8th, 2019

My math professors never included 0 in the natural numbers. Is including it an American thing or something? You Yankees do everything differently.

Why don't we make an axiom that says "sets cannot contain themselves and statements cannot be self-referential?" That solves all the stupid self-reference paradoxes.

8:12 That's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, made in large part my Sir Isaac Newton… way before the 20th century… Russell's books is simply called "Principia Mathematica." It has a white cover without the Philosophiæ Naturalis bit in the title. You can even see in the image you used "Autore S. Newton."

Im sorry I cant listen to a young lady talk about deeper mathematics subjects

A random sequence of letters:

safghlasfgljsghasrandomnessasfkglasfhfglashfgmakeshasfpifgasosfkgoasgeverythinglsafjgljashfgpksnfpkgjsodjg

I would not expect any old concatenation of terms to produce a valid statement. Surely Russel's paradox boils down to an invalid statement equivalent to A=NOT A?

At 5:45, the crisis arises. Half way through the vid. Bad directing or bad name. You could call it number theory 101.

Can you use a dedekind cut to define transcendental numbers such as pi and e?

I'll just give this a drop: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-mathematics/#TwoVieAboMatNomPla

[reaches for peanut butter because this video is his jam] Humans have a constantly erroneous (albeit 'erroneous with structure') veil of biological perceptions so nothing we perceive is ever how 'it' (Reality) really truly is; for instance the 'Logic' in Reality. It's only partially logical to say 'there is 1 electron here' but it is completely logical to say 'I perceive there to be 1 electron here.' You perceive the 'electron' and you perceive the 'one-ness' of the thing. But it is just a perception of your faculties! Logic in and of itself doesn't exist in the way we think it does i.e. it's not what it seems to be even though its essence is 'there' between us and the Reality, confronting us at every moment. Math and science can't touch this problem even though a reductionist can describe the mechanics of how it all moves using math, and very accurately. Thus, truth and logic can be found in reality and reality can be found in truth and logic, all for the biological observer to perceive under the always annoying 'structure of perceptual error' for that particular biology whose experience of reality is nothing more then a superimposition of what is 'really there' and what the biological faculties perceive to be 'there'. I conclude – logic 'exists' it's just never quite as we perceive it to be because logic doesn't exist wholly in perception but it does exist wholly in Reality.

10101010…

At least mathematics doesn't have to worry about a replication crisis.

Or does it?

is the definition of integers that is given the "only" proper definition? because, now i remember why i gave up on math. the definition is crazy. i taught… wtf, you are making it convuluted on purpose! just roll the frikin axis over godamit, lets go! you got to "pairs" somehow nobody asked for and i dont believe you. well, thats how i feel.. i should be explained why the friggin pairs and sets got in.. numbers for godsake. hate pairs. hate lots of (). interesting… but apparently i missed something from teachers, didnt know what n how 2ask, to make it make sense to me

Infinity and Choice seems to clearly leave from for God and because HE said so and you can chose t roll with that or not lol and randomness is just your lack of logical knowledge lol

I wonder why this way of teaching and learning isn't the norm everywhere

wait, so 1+1=2 needs about 100 pages of proof?? I'll surely bother my math professors now!!!!!!!!