News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Mathematical Patterns That Eventually Fail by gpm on Saturday September 22, 2018 @05:35PM (#18048146)
We can absolutely say what happens to equations with big n, math has no problem talking about large numbers. n > n * n for n > 1 for instance is fundamentally true - by virtue of our definitions of "1", "integers", ">" and "n * n", our logical system (generally zfc), and our definition of true.

That's not to say that the real world physics will continue to match our models for big n, or anything like that. Just that our abstract mathematical models continue to "work".

Re:Mathematical Patterns That Eventually Fail by schoen on Saturday September 22, 2018 @08:22PM (#18048706)
I think you mean n < n * n rather than n > n * n here.
Re:Mathematical Patterns That Eventually Fail by gpm on Saturday September 22, 2018 @09:10PM (#18048876)
Oops, yes.
Re:Mathematical Patterns That Eventually Fail by shoo on Saturday September 22, 2018 @08:25PM (#18048712)
Your stated inequality fails for all n > 1
Re:Mathematical Patterns That Eventually Fail by Someone on Sunday September 23, 2018 @07:05AM (#18050502)
In ℤ₃, it is almost correct. There, “n ≥ n * n”.