You would need to define finite representation as other than mathematical irredu

You would need to define finite representation as other than mathematical irreducibility which is as far as I know the language used to name the problem operationally. But that’s fine. We may be able to categorize a statistical product of marginal indifference (classes), and as such may be able to reduce them to statistical language (continuous mathematical descriptions) but within those limits all operations are discrete. Our organization works with determination of first principles by continuous recursive disambiguation of all states into paradigms, vocabularies, logics, and grammars, and falsification by tests of operational constructability. This produces both a single formal operational logic of all existence, and therefore the possibility of testing truth claims by the conversion of all expressions into operational language that requires demonstrated knowledge of the causeal hierarchy – without fictionalisms or presumptions..
This is why we’re so ‘picky’ about language.
You’re working in the simple language of continuous statistics, and we’re working in the infinite language of operational construction.
We’re doing math. In the same sense computers perform algoriths. But with a far more complex set of semantically ordinal rather than positional names.
We can represent anything we say with supply demand diagrams which grow far too complex as do manifolds in mathematics. So we find humans do better and we reach more people reverting to operational langaug expressions as before the pre symbolic transformation of mathematics.

Reply addressees: @Ket_Math_Dad @EricMorganCoach @Viorp2 @WerrellBradley @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad