BenVTrigger said:
that being said there is room for error in all things. I'm simply saying if mathematically you can make something something it's not on an infinite scale it is probably a reflection of human understanding not being able to properly understand infinity or how math would even work on an infinite scale And ironically you enter the thread shouting things like calling people "logicians" and their opinions weird but then go on and say act humble. Look in a mirror |
Chill man, I wasn't reffering to you, but to somebody else, MDMAlliance to be exact. I do agree that I sounded arrogant and condescending but it was a reaction; you guys should understand that it's fine to doubt something until you're shown proof, but to claim the opposite of something that is well known and understood in mathematics after being told so that the thing is well known makes you look infinitely (yes I use this word on purpose) more untolerable than, say, flat Earth people.
If you're this desperate to see rigorous proof, check out the book Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Walter Rudin. It's a rigorous introduction to analysis, and there's a whole section on deriving the set of real numbers from the set of rationals.
You may also want to check Michael Spivak's Calculus. The first chapter treats numbers basically as abstractly as you can consider for an introduction.
