Jewish ass numberLiterally discovered because of interests
Thank you based Jews.
The most Jewish numbers:1) e2) 6 000 000
>>16176234it wasn’t discovered that way. it first appeared in log tables. but it’s not clear if Napier, Briggs. etc. knew the significance. Logarithms weren’t functions, they were just tables so it was attempted to make a logarithmic function by using derivatives and later e appears as a bound for which area under 1/x is exactly 1. Will post later if I have time
>>16176234there are more transcendental numbers than real numbers
>>16177245Source?
>>16176234>Euler's number>wasn't even discovered by Euler
>>16177311It's called Napier's number in civilized countries.
>>16176887>>16176234(1/2)Logarithms were initially just calculating tables.>2: 1>4: 2>8: 3>16: 4>32: 5>...You can see how multiplication is turned to addition and extraction of roots to division, but it's not really practical unless you use a base very close to 1 since the gaps grow fast. Using base 1.01:>1.01: 1>1.02: 2>1.03: 3>1.04: 4>...A number close to e appears here in the 100th entry. Had we used a smaller base like 1.001, then a number closer to e would have occurred in the 1000th entry because:[math]You're going from (1+1/100)^{100} to (1+1/100)^{1000}[/math]Then the question posed itself. Log tables are discontinuous. Can we find a function that makes log tables continuous?
>You′regoingfrom(1+1/100)100to(1+1/100)1000You're going from [math](1+1/100)^{100}[/math] to [math](1+1/1000)^{1000}[/math]
>>16176234>Jewish ass numberLooks like the phenotype wins again
>>16177282my dad, he knows a lot :)
>>16178072Funny how your mom never mentioned that to me
>>16177245Both are uncountably infinite, so there are equally as many.
>>16177353even though e or numbers close to it made subtle appearances in log tables, it’s not clear if Napier was aware
>>16178677I don't believe in infinities, only in things you can actually list.If you can't show it to me or measure it in a lab, I doesn't exist, this is basic science.
>>16179792I’ve made a list here:1: infinity
>>16179792>only in things you can actually list.mh, so given that the mechanism behind the diagonal argument is the same as the one behind the proof for the halting problem, are you asserting that *insert your preferred name for the machine that turing's proof says can't exist here* exists?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwNxVpbEVcc
>>16179991No, I don't make assertions about existence for which I cannot actually point to an element exists.Other questions?
>>16176234>Literally discovered because of interestsBecause of whose interests?
>>16180018-> Infinitythere I just pointed to it
>>16180206ah yes... take your meds.
>>16177245lmao retard
>>16176234what about nuremberg
It really is a jewish number. You can model a typical mortgage scenario and observe by comparing the compound interest method ($ P(1+r)^{t} $) to the $ e^{r*t} $ differential method that a buyer who can afford to spend no more than $1000/month on mortgage payments for a 30 year payment plan with an annual interest of 4%, where the interest is credited once, is ripped off and makes less headway on his loan balance after 10, 15, 20, 30 years than he does by traditional compound interest
>>16176477Check'd based underrated post
>>16177245>>16178677>>16179991Uncountability is unfalsifiable bullshit. Every real number has a finite definition or expression, meaning you can arrange the real numbers in increasing size according to the length of their finite definition, so they are countable. This is only impossible if there are “real” numbers that cannot be expressed or represented by any sort of infinite sum, limit, or description of any sort, and could only be represented by the full infinite list of digits. The problem is that no one has ever proven that these numbers exist according to the properties of the real numbers, and even if they do “exist,” we will never interact with them in any way, so they are useless.
>>16176887>Logarithms weren’t functions, they were just tablesFunctions are (implicit) tables.It's a mapping from one value to another.
>>16182060>o they are useless.oh, like you, you know i kind of your point when you put it like that
>>16179792>If you can't show it to me or measure it in a lab, I doesn't exist
>>16183352this is /sci/if you believe something else, you belong in /x/
>>16183352
>>16179792Black holes don't exist then
>>16184777No - no they don't. It's leftist shilling.
