/lit/ - Literature

>>18869699
>so much mathematics and physics to learn
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...
What else?

>>18869699
Physics largely rests on untenable philosophical assumptions.

>>18869699

>>18869703
>>18869706
>>18869708
schizos

>>18869699
>he reads to "learn"
OH NONONO someone please tell him

>>18869706
>dude let's autistically describe trajectories of missiles and balls falling down an inclined plane
and they call it wisdom......

science is just another layer. expecting final answers there is like trying to reach the edge of the world.
t. schopenhauer

>>18869699
I don't derive pleasure from mathematics or physics, but I do from reading fiction. I'm glad you enjoy those things though, because while what you do has no effect on me whatsoever and my opinion on what you do is utterly worthless, my enjoyment of fiction has allowed me to realise that empathy is a good thing, and the fact that you enjoy physics gives me a vicarious thrill.

>>18869699
Don't sound fun I wanna read about ghosts n cowboy n shit

>>18869741
Is that a real photo?

>>18869699
>when there is so much mathematics and physics to learn?
Not that much tbqh. A lot to discover? Probably.

>>18869741
No one said science is the final answer. It's just an approximate model for the physical universal, and a single book on physics is infinitely more useful for humanity than every single book written on philosophy since the dawn of time.

>>18869699
>imagine not being able to do both

>>18869699
I really don’t care if my thoughts help anyone at all

>>18869699
because I have a soul

Probably because a lot of people suck at math and feel bad when trying to do something they're not good at. Similar to why a lot of people don't do deadlifts or run marathons.

>>18869699
math is literally applied philosophy. It's the best language we have to approximate forms. It follows easily from the fact that the same concepts can be described using different notation from different branches of mathematics. On amother note, the more algebraic the branch is the more "languagy". Geometry on the other hand is the closest we had got to describing forms.

>>18869699
I read fiction to relax and take my mind off math.

Because most people are too dumb to fully understand mathematics and theoretical physics. Even people who are very interested in these things (smart students) get absolutely filtered at some point. And no, getting a degree in physics/maths doesn't mean you understand it either.

>>18869699
I do both. They are complementary, just stop reading trash.

>>18870456

It's a vicious cycle, really. No one is born with these high-level abstractions, everyone has to learn them. Of course, if you believe that you're somehow naturally bad at it, you're going to get anxious whenever exposed to them and thus will never learn. On the other hand, if you put in work, dive right in, you grow accustomed and the initial discomfort passes.

>>18869699
Too dumb

>>18869699
Feynman was unironically the coolest guy in the 20th century. Now and then, I would put my headphone on and listen to his lectures before sleep

>>18870815
This. If you can read and write and intuitively understand why one plus one equals two, then you have the ability to understand the rest of mathematics.

>>18869703
You're missing most of it (pic).

>>18871303
> Hyperreals

>>18869699
>Fiction
For entertainment
>philosophy
The only form of philosophy which seems cool to me is analytic philosophy, the rest seems like mumbo jumbo.

>>18871666
Checked

>>18871676
How long is it going to be before we ban racist terms like "mumbo jumbo?"

>>18871691
Hyperreals are just as natural as an extension of reals, as reals as an extension of rationals.

>>18871303
But they're all representations of quantities. What's the usefulness of categorizing them?

>>18871735
It's not about categorization, it's about constructing one set of numbers using another. So you define rationals in terms of natural numbers, reals in terms of rationals, etc.

>>18869699
why would you read outdated crap?

>>18869699
Feynman didn't even know calculus

>>18869797
holy based

>>18871700
What's racist about mumbo jumbo?

>>18869797
>usefulness!!!!
back to pleddit

>>18872336
>Outdated
Retard.
>crap
Retard confirmed.
>>18872368
>didn't even know calculus
There's a story he told from when he was a kid about learning calculus (i.e. telling the librarian that 'Calculus for the Practical Man' was for his dad). Anyway, the point of the story isn't 'hey, I learned calculus when I was 8'--it's 'don't credit people with authority because of superficialities.' You're retarded.
>>18872379
That's called Scientism and we call its ideological adherents 'bugmen.' Notice the lack of awareness when it comes to parroting the "god of the gaps" argument (i.e. "No one said science is the final answer. It's just an approximate model..."). I might let this guy help design a bridge but I wouldn't trust him with any real leadership.

>>18869699
You can do both.

>>18869699
Math’s boring

>>18872497
Not the quoted anon, but it is an old book. Modern textbooks are better than that. You can probably read it and get a lot from it, but still, if you are picking a single book, you are probably better with the last edition of Halliday and Resnick or something.

>>18871303
>nine zulu queens ruled china
WE

>>18871666
They're faker than the reals. Can you show me an ultrafilter on the naturals? Is the set of all even naturals in that ultrafilter? How do you decide?
>>18871735
They're not representations of anything. Their "construction" depends on something you cannot construct: an ultrafilter on the naturals.
>>18871772
You cannot define reals in terms of rationals, as evidenced by the fact that rationals are a coherent and well-defined mathematical concept while reals are schizobabble. Reals are defined in terms of "sets of rationals", which is a completely different beast. Something that nobody has been able to define.

>>18869710
18869706 is right

>>18869706
Which are...?

>>18871303
Maths is retarded

>>18871303
real numbers ain't real, kid