11–20 of 30 posts
Here is one - there are finitely many mathematical symbols (or at least, all mathematical symbols can be defined in terms of a finite core of symbols). That means the set of all mathematical definitions is countable (i.e. you could assign a whole number to each one, putting them into an infinitely long ordered list). However, the set of real numbers is uncountable (by Cantor's argument). Therefore the vast majority o…
You can go through picture by picture or search for a picture you already have.
One of these images is the screenshot of this conversation, including your reply to this comment that you haven't posted yet.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1/is-mathemat...
Here is one - there are finitely many mathematical symbols (or at least, all mathematical symbols can be defined in terms of a finite core of symbols). That means the set of all mathematical definitions is countable (i.e. you could assign a whole number to each one, putting them into an infinitely long ordered list). However, the set of real numbers is uncountable (by Cantor's argument). Therefore the vast majority o…
Here is one - there are finitely many mathematical symbols (or at least, all mathematical symbols can be defined in terms of a finite core of symbols). That means the set of all mathematical definitions is countable (i.e. you could assign a whole number to each one, putting them into an infinitely long ordered list). However, the set of real numbers is uncountable (by Cantor's argument). Therefore the vast majority o…
Can I move an object X meters away from me, where X is an uncomputable number?
Whether the answer is yes or no, the consequences are very interesting to me.
Reminds me of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloot_Digital_Coding_System The Sloot Digital Coding System is an alleged data sharing technique that its inventor claimed could store a complete digital movie file in 8 kilobytes of data — which, if true, would dramatically disprove Shannon's source coding theorem, a widely accepted principle of information theory that predicts how much data compression of a digital file…
If you wanted any movie in 1080x768, and wanted to have it in full colour, that would be 16,777,216 possible colours per pixel, so the number of IDs in your sequentially generated noise database would be 16777216 * 1024 * 768 = 1.319414e+13. This is where I think I might be misunderstanding something, because that number in decimal form is apparently 13194140000000, which means every frame will have an ID that is only 14 digits long.
Where have I made the mistake in concluding that I could store any 1024x768 image in 14 characters so long as my computer could generate an image of that ID?
Edit: I've just realised that 1024x768 is not a standard resolution, but I suppose the point remains with 1920x1080
in fact, you "create" something when its not existed yet, or its never been perceived to exist by anyone. despite in theory everything are already in track of an algorithm, we cant really sure that its already there, or its creating enough effect to be known to exist, i.e. hardly anyone will think about it.
well, after all, whether it is "created" or "discovered" depends on the context and people's general perception about it.