This is a stream where you can post anything that's related to Mathematics!
130 followers
Mathematics
To post images in this stream, please .
Moderators
Create your own stream
Imgflip Pro
- AI creation tools & better GIFs
- No ads
- Custom 6x6 profile icon and new colors
- Your images jump to the top of approval queues
Go Pro
by anonymous
91 views, 1 comment
by anonymous
111 views, 1 upvote, 4 comments
115 views, 1 upvote, 4 comments
Check the NSFW checkbox to enable not-safe-for-work images
Show More
by anonymous
117 views, 5 comments
by anonymous
141 views, 3 comments
![more proof to conjecture that ∞≠∞ now with successor showing case where ∞=∞ | successor: ℕ⇒∞=1;
ℤ⇒2⁕∞=∞+1; ℚ⇒(i/i)∞
=(i^3/i^3)⁕2⁕∞ ; ℝ⇒∞=∞; the best way to know something is to believe; a recalled proof. suppose
we take {(√2)^0=(∞-1)/∞}.
we generalize to infinity
{(√∞)^0=1/∞}. in between
is some Taylorish series
{(∞-0)⁕(∞-1)...(1)} nicely!
via {(√(π⁕2)=1⁕2⁕3...}
[mathacy] exceptionally
(π⁕e)^0=(√2)^0. this
disproves Schanuel's
conjecture. exercise:
prove ∞⁕e^3 is an integer. | image tagged in memes,change my mind,yesterday,dejected,wednesday,______ | made w/ Imgflip meme maker](http://i.imgflip.com/9jzzr9.jpg)
![For Anthony Corkern who asked me to define Zen. | WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT THIS
STATEMENT {'MATHEMATICAL ABSOLUTES EXIST'} IS TRUE. WELL TO
START MATHEMATICS ITSELF DOES NOT EXIST. SPECIFICALLY
OBVIOUSLY MATHEMATICAL ABSOLUTES DON'T EXIST. THERE IS NO
ZERO OR INFINITY OR EVEN A PERFECT UNIT DEFINITION OF ONE
BEYOND THE REALM OF MATHEMATICS.YET WITHIN MATHEMATICS
WE PRESUME PROOFS CAN BE MADE REGARDING ABSOLUTES.
APPARENTLY THEN THE THEOREM MIGHT BE ILL FORMED.
{'MATHEMATICAL IN-ABSOLUTES DO NOT EXIST'} SEEMS TO BE ALL
THAT WE MIGHT ACCOMPLISH. THIS IS AS ALSO ACTUALLY NOT QUITE
THERE. THAT IS FROM WITHIN MATHS ABSOLUTES ARE AXIOMATIC.
AND FROM WITHOUT THEY ARE IN-EXISTANT. SO THE RESTATE
THEOREM SIMPLY ADMITS THAT OUTSIDE OF MATHS THERE ARE IN-
ABSOLUTE CONCEPTS. YET MATHS CAN NOT THEORIZE ABOUT NON-
MATHS.THAT IS THE RESTATE SIMPLY SAYS {'NON-MATHEMATICAL IN-
ABSOLUTES DO EXIST'} IF THESE TWO RESTATINGS WERE LOGICAL
PROVINESS THEN {"NON-MATHEMATICAL IN-
ABSOLUTES"↦"MATHEMATICAL ABSOLUTES"} YET OF COURSE IS NOT
BE CAUSE OF CONSTRUCTIVENESS CONCERN. AND ALSO JUST SILLY.
HOWEVER IF WE LOOK AT CERTAIN ABSOLUTES MAYBE SOME GET
AROUND CONSTRUCTIVE CONCERNS AND OTHERS DO NOT. AND ONE IN
PARTICULAR MIGHT GET AROUND ABSOLUTE-GET-AROUNDS VS
ABSOLUTE-NOT-GET-AROUNDS EQUIVALENTLY. {"NON-MATHEMATICAL
ABSENCES IN-EXISTING"↦"MATHEMATICAL ABSENCES"} THAT IS
DOES MATHEMATICS ITSELF NOT EXISTING FROM A NON-MATHS
VIEWPOINT IMPLY THE EXISTANCE OF ABSOLUTES LIKE ZERO FROM
WITHIN MATHS. THIS IS PARADOXICALLY DEFINING ZERO IN A WAY WE
CAN THINK OF AS NEGATIVE ZERO. IF ZERO IS IMPLIED WITHIN
MATHS BY MATHS OWN IN-EXISTANCE THEN CLEARLY THERE IS A
RECURSION {(-0)=(-0)^∞}. UN-FORTUNETELY THEN TO 'RECONSTITUTE
ZERO' REQUIRES {(-0)^∞^0=0}. THERE CAN BE NO RATIO OF ZERO
WITHIN MATHS TO ZERO WITHOUT IF THE LATER IS A FUNCTION OF TH
FORMER. SO THERE CAN BE NO RATIO EITHER. NOR CLEARLY A SIMPLE
DIFFERENCE BECAUSE NO {0=0-0} IS DEFINED AT ALL YET. A GOOSE
CHASE. HOWEVER WHAT ABOUT GRANDLY {"NON MATHEMATICAL
NON-SENSE"↦"MATHEMATICAL SENSE"} HERE WE ARE CLAIMING
ABOVE AND BEYOND THE INEXISTENCE OF MATHEMATICS FROM AN
OUTSIDERS VIEW ALSO IT'S UN-INTELLIGEBILILTY. THIS SPEAKS TO THE
PROPERTY OF ABSOLUTES MORE CLEARLY. MATHS IS RATHER
NONSENSICAL TO FINITE BEINGS AS REGARDS FOR EXAMPLE INFINITE
PROPERTIES. YET IS THIS MORE CONSTRUCTIVE. PERHAPS THE VERY
FACT THAT AXIOMATIC ZERO APPEARS AS AXIOMATIC NEGATIVE ZERO
MATTERS NOW. WE'VE SHOWN THAT NEGATIVE ZERO CANNOT
DEFINE ZERO. DENYING THE UTILITY OF MINUS ZERO WOULD STOP
RECURSION. SO IF F(0)≠0 BECAUSE G(-0)≠(-0) IS CLAIMED AS
AXIOMATIC WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PERCEPTION OF SENSICALITY.
WELL {"MATHEMATICAL NON-SENSE"¬↦"MATHEMATICAL SENSE"}
WAS STANDARD STATE WITHOUT CONSTRAINT FROM THE RECURSION
WITHIN MATHS. IE (-0)=(0). AND NOW THE NEGATION OF THAT WITH
OUR DISAXIOMATIZING OF ZERO? WE NEED TO TAKE THE NOTION OF
NEGATIVE ABSENCE SERIOUSLY FROM WITHOUT. THAT IS STOPPING
RECURSION FROM WITHIN AS 'NO MINUS ZERO' CAN RELAX OUR
ABSENCE VIEWING WITHOUT TO,LITERAL {"MATHS IS NEGATIVE
ZERO'}. THIS HAS A RIPPLE EFFECT ON ITS SENSELESS APPRECIATION.
{'MATHS IS SENSELESS ONLY TO THE DEGREE THAT NEGATIVE ZERO
IS RECURSIVE"} IN OTHERVWORDS ALLOWING {'THIS STATEMENTING IS
FALSE"↔"ALL MATHS IS FALSE"} IS NOW DISALLOWED. WE CANNOT
MAKE PARADOXES THAT RELY ON A NOT OPERATOR. WE CAN ONLY
PARADOXICALLY SAY THING THAT ARE AXIOMATIZED FROM WITHOUT
AS NON LOGIC. SO {A LITERAL STATING OF ZENO'S PARADOX IS
POSSIBLE AS FAR AS IT'S OWN METAPHORICAL APPROACH TO A
MEANINGFUL LITERALLLISM OF ITSELF"}. THAT IS GOO YETBIS REALLY A
STATEMENT ANALOG OF THIS QUESTION BLOCK: {'IS THIS A
MEANINGFUL QUESTION'↠'YES'¬↠'NO'}. A QUESTION BLOCK TELLS
US IF THIS WERE RECURSED WHAT WE COULD NOT DO AS FAR AS
STATEMENTING MORE SUCCINCTLY. SO NOW INFINITE
SENSELESSNESS FROM WITHOUT CAN LEAD TO ITS DECONSTRUCTION
FROM WITHIN MATHS PROVINESS! WHAT INEXISTS SENSELESSLY
OUTSIDE OF MATHSS FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES IS THE GROUND
STATE OF DISINFORMATION. AN INFORMATIONLESS ENDLESS,
SPECIFICALLY POSITIVE ENDLESS STRINGS OF IS WHAT MUSTED BE
DELICATELY HANDLED WITH PIN MATHS. IF E^0=Π^0 ITS RATHER
EASY TO DERIVE THIS WAY. {(((∞+1)/(∞))^∞)*(Π)=(((∞+1)/
(∞))^∞)*(Π)} TAKING INFINITE ROOT [AND NOT REVEALING PLAY
REGARDING OVER-INFINITE POWERS OF IMAGINARIES HERE, NOW]
{(∞+1)/(∞)*(E+(1/∞))=(((∞+1)/(∞))^∞)*(E+(1/∞))} REWRITING.
{(∞)/(∞-1)*(E+(1/∞))=(((∞)/(∞-1))^∞)*(E+(1/∞))} AND CHANGING
SIDES {(∞-1)/(∞)*(E+(1/∞))=(((∞-1)/(∞))^∞)*(E+(1/∞))} CALL
THAT $ IN A PERHAPS UNFORGIVABLE CO-OPT. SAY 'RAVENOUS'.
{$*(E+(1/∞)-(1∞))=$*E} NOW TAKE
{(1/∞)}=$/∞}, {$*E*∞+$+$=E*(∞-1)}
WHERE {$/∞+$/∞=$/∞} SO {$*E*∞+$=E*∞-E} OMG
{$*E*(∞+1)=E*(∞-1)} AND {$=E*(∞-1)/E*(∞+1)} YET THE
RAVENOUS NUMBER IS THE NEGATIVE MEANINGLESS NUMBER THAT
CAN BE ALLOWED IN-MATH SO TRUST US THAT {$=((1/∞)-1)=E^0} THE
VENOMOUS NUMBER THAT IS THE SENSELESS NUMBER THAT CAN
ONLY EXIST OUT-MATH [SORRY MORE ANNOYINGEST CO-OPTING] IS
{¥=(1-(1/∞)=√N)^0}. ANYONE CAN 'HAVE A GO' AT PROVING THE RATIO
DIAGONALS OF DIAGONALS OF A SQUARE IN-MATH
MUST DIFFER FROM OUT-MATHS BECAUSE IS A
MEANINGLESS MODIFICATION TO A UNIT VALUE. SIMPLY PROVED
ABSTRACTLY AN INFINITE SQUARE CAN EXIST ABSTRACTLY THOUGH NOT
CONCRETELY. IF WE PRESUME AN AVERAGE RHOMBUS EXISTING IN-
MATH AND OUT-MATH. BUT THE SAY 90 DEGREE TURN DISPLACES
BETWEEN MATH NON-CENTIRC AND MATH CENTRIC? THEN
INCONSISTENCY IS PRESERVED AND... AND INCOMPLETENESS
WHICH MAY BE THE TYPICALLY UNCONSIDERED GODELIAN OPTION.
INCONSISTENT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY QUADRANTS CANNOT JUST BE
ROTATED HOWEVER. AND INCOMPLETE BECAUSE THE VENOMOUS
NUMBER AKA ¥ MUST NEVER BE UTILIZED AS SUCH. BEST
CONVERTED MOST GENERALLY A FUNCTION OF THE GOLDEN AND/OR
SILVER RATIO'S. | image tagged in long black template,toe,constructable,co-opted symbology,______,in-out-maths | made w/ Imgflip meme maker](http://i.imgflip.com/9iw2cr.jpg)