51
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
51 points (96.4% liked)
Asklemmy
52971 readers
138 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, me neither. But if all sets are finite AoC just trivially holds, right? You can do it "manually".
If you back off to just ZF, parts of functional analysis will break. L^infinity^ space isn't separable, and so isn't necessarily Baire anymore, for example.
If we go all the way to finitism or ultrafinitism it doesn't really exist as a concept in the first place. But, whatever numerical engineering calculation will still work, and you can probably do something that looks like functional analysis to determine a mode of vibration, even if you're actually just using a series of high-dimensional but finite spaces. Probably, anyway. Don't ask me to prove it.
You still need to select the class is what I think. If you don't have infinitely many numbers than how many do you have line of thinking.