Posted:

**Mar 09, 2020 1:55 am**Hi I will be rational

I will show what I found on the net

First Dean shows 1=0.999.. which is a contradiction in maths

https://www.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/fd7v9z/erotic_poet_proves_mathematicsscience_end_in/

Now that seems very clear to me-being rational

Second Biology is not a science

https://www.reddit.com/r/badbadmathematics/comments/f3hinf/a_philosophy_to_dangerous_to_acknowledge/

Now that seems very clear to me-being rational

Thirdly Godels theorems

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/g%C3%B6del%E2%80%99s-1st-theorem-is-meaningless.4304/

Godel's 2nd theorem is about

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/godels-2nd-theorem-ends-in-paradox.4306/

Thus as far as I see being rational

dean does show mathematics science end in meaninglessness

I will show what I found on the net

First Dean shows 1=0.999.. which is a contradiction in maths

https://www.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/fd7v9z/erotic_poet_proves_mathematicsscience_end_in/

what does this notation mean-you see it but the result conflicts with your education so mind still refuses to see

0.888...

and

0.999....

and while you are at it

integer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer

"An integer (from the Latin integer meaning "whole")[note 1] is a number that can be written without a fractional component. For example, 21, 4, 0, and −2048 are integers, while 9.75, 5+1/2, and √2 are not.

The set of integers consists of zero (0), the positive natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...), also called whole numbers or counting numbers"

1 is an integer

0.888.. is not an integer

0.999.. is not an integer

thus when an integer 1= a non-integer 0.999.. maths ends in contradiction

Now that seems very clear to me-being rational

Second Biology is not a science

https://www.reddit.com/r/badbadmathematics/comments/f3hinf/a_philosophy_to_dangerous_to_acknowledge/

bear in mind we are told by science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

"Biology is the science concerned with the study of life."

but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life"

so basically

without science knowing what life is

then dead and alive have no meaning

biology science dont even know what life is-how ironic they study life but dont know what life is

that is why biology is not a science

Now that seems very clear to me-being rational

Thirdly Godels theorems

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/g%C3%B6del%E2%80%99s-1st-theorem-is-meaningless.4304/

1) Gödel’s 1st theorem

a) “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)

note

"... there is an arithmetical statement that is true..."

In other words there are true mathematical statements which cant be proven

But the fact is Godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true thus his theorem is meaningless

If Godel said "effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic gibblies, there is an arithmetical statement that is gibbly"

but did not tell us what gibbly or gibblies are/meant you would have no trouble saying hey Godel your statement/ theorem is meaningless

same goes for true maths statement if he cant tell us what makes a maths statement true then his theorem is meaningless

Godel's 2nd theorem is about

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/godels-2nd-theorem-ends-in-paradox.4306/

"If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from

within itself, then it is inconsistent.”

But we have a paradox

Gödel is using a mathematical system

his theorem says a system cant be proven consistent

THUS A PARADOX

Godel must prove that a system cannot be proven to be consistent based upon the premise that the logic he uses must be consistent . If the logic he uses is not consistent then he cannot make a proof that is consistent. So he must assume that his logic is consistent so he can make a proof of the impossibility of proving a system to be consistent. But if his proof is true then he has proved that the logic he

uses to make the proof must be consistent, but his proof proves that

this cannot be done

THUS A PARADOX

Thus as far as I see being rational

dean does show mathematics science end in meaninglessness