3 ms·
Look, neither did I say there are no mathematical certainties, nor did I anywhere argue about the content of what you said. The only thing I said is: there are
by kbrkbr 1y ago
Look, neither did I say there are no mathematical certainties, nor did I anywhere argue about the content of what you said.
The only thing I said is: there are probably no _obvious_ mathematical certainties in reply to what you said, as the history of mathematics shows with plenty of examples.
But it's already too much ink spilled for such a little difference.
I reckon now that you use words like "obvious" (or "categorically" in the last reply [1]) as markers of belief strength or something. That's fine, many people do it.
[1] related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36808333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36808333
- d4rkn0d3z 1y ago> "Look, neither did I say there are no mathematical certainties, nor did I anywhere argue about the content of what you said The only thing I said is: there are probably no _obvious_ mathematical certainties in reply to what you said, as the history of mathematics shows with plenty of examples." There is nothing more obvious and certain mathematically than the fact that exponential growth of bubbles entails increasing valuations and increasing rates of growth in those valuations. I use the word "obvious" quite properly as in "can be read from any graph", or "is contained within the structure or the model". I use categorical because the implied conclusion of the original comment is a categorical error.
- kbrkbr 1y agoThere are people who disagree. Here is one compilation of theorems that are obvious and false: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/820686/obvious-theorems-that-are-actually-false https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/820686/obvious-theo...
- d4rkn0d3z 1y agoThis is not a theorem, it is a property of the model.