Mathematical Numbers are Theoretical; Not Proven

[[SomeGuy]]

Mathematical Numbers (numbers used in mathematical expressions; ie. 2x+9=8y) are impossible. For example, there are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 (nothing) and 1 (a whole). If 1 is impossible to reach, then it is only theoretical, not proven. But, I have a problem with my statement: Real-Life Numbers can be used as Mathematical numbers, and mathematical operations can be used to manipulate Real-Life numbers. Example of Real Life Numbers: There are two eggs on a table. It's pretty obvious that there are two eggs: Therefore, Real-Life numbers are already proven to exist. But mathematical numbers are only theoretical. You can't have 1.333... eggs. So, most of us in maths class do problems like: Graph 2x^2+4=y...blah blah blah. Why does that work? Is mathematics only a theory, because real maths numbers are only theory? Or, maybe we use real life numbers instead of mathematical numbers, but use them as a maths medium? More on the impossibility of maths numbers: 0.3333... is possible. It exists. 1/3 = 0.333... It is a number made from a simple expression. Any rational number can be expressed this way. So, what about irrational numbers? They can be expressed in basic maths as well. So all numbers between 0-0.999... can be proven. But, you will never reach 1, or 2, or 3. There are an infinite amount of numbers between them. That's confusing for me; if the numbers exist, and are proven to exist, then why are they impossible when put together as a whole? 1+ is only theoretical, but it is made up of an infinite amount of numbers, and each one can be proven. I don't get it. Summary: 1. Maths numbers are theoretical; in maths expressions, we use Real Life numbers. We don't use maths numbers, because the only maths numbers, the only non theoretical numbers, are between 0-0.999... 2. WTF why can we prove each number between 0-0.999... exists, but we can't prove that 1 exists? My conclusion for 2: 0.999... MUST be equal to 1, in order to prove that maths numbers are not theoretical; and the same onward. Ie. 2.999...3.999... etc. What are your thoughts?

[Inside This Fantasy]

Your wording is all very confusing to me. First of all, just because there are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1 doesn't mean you will never reach 1. There are an infinite number of numbers period. Every number exists. Saying you can't reach it because there are an infinite number of numbers in between just doesn't make sense. Also, you can add an infinite number of numbers and get a whole number. The number 1 does exist. Its value is 1.0000000000000000000........ repeating forever. It is also equal to .999999... repeating forever. Source Second, saying numbers are only theoretical doesn't make much sense. They aren't real, but that doesn't exactly make them theoretical. Within the realm of mathematics a number has a precise and defined value. It isn't theoretically 1, mathematically it is 1. The only reason you can't have 1.33333333333333333........ eggs is because the real world isnt infinitely divisible. In math, things are, so you could have that many eggs. Infinity doesn't exist in the real world, and I think that is what is confusing you. I'm sorry if my response is vague or doesn't exactly address what you were saying. Your post kind of confused me and i couldn't tell exactly what you were trying to say.

[archdreamer]

I have no idea what the OP is trying to convey. Not only am I unable to decipher the relationships between the various points made, but I also cannot understand what most of the statements mean at all, even in isolation. It's almost as if the post is in another language. I'd be happy to reply, but I need a rephrase here.

[Photolysis]

If 1 is impossible to reach, then it is only theoretical, not proven. The argument fails here, as 1 is not impossible to reach. Just because there are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, this does not stop you from reaching it. In the same way that there are an infinite amount of ways you can orientate a shape. That doesn't stop you from rotating it 90 degrees.

[Kushna Mufeed]

Infinite gradient =/= infinite magnitude

[mysterious dreamer]

What you're saying is the same as the movement paradox. It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work.

[SnakeCharmer]

Example of Real Life Numbers: There are two eggs on a table. It's pretty obvious that there are two eggs: Therefore, Real-Life numbers are already proven to exist. But mathematical numbers are only theoretical. You can't have 1.333... eggs. There is no such thing as "two eggs" in real life. That is just a mental model. No two eggs are identical. You just classify those two different objects into an artificial category. Therefore eggs do not exist?

[Xei]

You're basically making no sense at all. Please try and reiterate a little more succinctly.

[Artelis]

I think it has been determined that this argument is full of holes. Big ones.

[[SomeGuy]]

Ha, sorry if it sounds a bit confusing. I'll try writing it with more form and repost.

[ninja9578]

Math is the one science that is concrete and universal. Gravity pulls mass together - theory Genetic mutations and natural selection creates evolution - theory God created everything - myth 1 * 10 = 10 - fact Math is 100%, unlike every other science. It's not based on observable reality (which is variable), it's based on absolutes.