Hacker News

It’s also genuinely surprising. We’re used to thinking of the countable as the small infinity, which it is, and yet a structure we feel like we can visualize contains so much complexity.

There is also, weirdly, a way in which massive finite numbers like TREE(3) “feel” larger than N, and large countable infinities “feel” larger than w_1, even though the opposite is clearly true.

You’d have to define what you mean by “existence” here. Clearly, there are infinite sets we can represent with a finite sequence of symbols. We can also imagine and reason about alternative universes with an infinite amount of information. You’d have to argue about how doing so would somehow be an incorrect thing to do.

Not really. Math uses no physical observation, only axioms. Nothing can "prove" or "disprove" axioms. However, if observation supports the axiomatic theory, then we use the theory for physical prediction. If observation doesn't, then we don't use the theory. Does that count as "disproof"?

In practice, infinite sets never exist as enumerations of every element, but as ways to generate more elements along with descriptions for which elements to include. Infinite set theories allow for equivocating a finite description with the infinite enumeration. In contrast, programming languages usually make a distinction between data (always finite) and data generation (possibly infinite). I would think that counts as a "disproof" in a way.

It's a very interesting idea; if you want to learn more about it, look up "ultrafinitism".

math is timeless

Why can't yours?

Nope.