/lit/ - Literature

>>19422732
Sophistry and bullshit metaphysics sounds deep, but being so bored you etch circles in the dirt is where I draw the line.

>>19422732
ITT
> reee mathematics is soulless

>>19422737
>I draw the line.
So you get it after all. Good.

I've already read Euclid.
But I want to know what I can read of other mathematicians or work by pythagorean thinkers.

>>19422743
Liking and reading about mathematics in itself is perfectly fine. But reading Euclid or any historical figure in mathematics or science is peak pseudery.

>>19422737
>>19422753
kek

>>19422732
>>19422743
explain to me why I should devote serious energy to logic when I could instead be a drunken murdering rapist, doing whatever I please without any semblance of abstraction?

>>19422769
wrong, reading commodified modern dogma that is a disgrace to the original thoughts/works is complete cringe and the sigil of jewish treachery.

>>19422799
take your meds

>>19422786
Logically I can't, but also that doesn't mean you can't do both.

>>19422769
Seriously. It's cool to see how people thought about and solved these problems back in the day but reading shit like the Elements or Principia to learn geometry and physics is pretty stupid.

>>19422807
Make me.

>>19422732
i already learned geometry in middle school

>>19422812
>>19422799
>>19422807
you need to learn math as an organic process of the discovery of truth, read a mathematicians lament

>>19422732
I actually haven't read Aristotle yet, so I'm in the clear.

>>19422769
Sure, I wasn't trying to scold anyone for not reading Euclid, I was generally commenting on the screeching math brings here. I'm not saying everyone is like that but it happens a lot.

(Although I would say that out of all historical texts in math and science Euclid may have the most enduring value for someone strictly interested in the subject, as opposed to its history. You absolutely can learn basic geometry working through Euclid, but you shouldn't read Copernicus to learn about the solar system.)

>>19422844
> but you shouldn't read Copernicus to learn about the solar system
Or, to give an example from the same ballpark of mathematics, learning logic from shit like Principia Mathematica is probably not a very good idea.

>>19422767
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_important_publications_in_mathematics
This is the canon of mathematical literature. Read any Greek writers in this list.

>>19422808
I've been wondering which life is more satisfying, a purely Apollonian one or a Dionysian one? can anything really provide for us better than an unconscious life enveloped in nature? I myself am happiest in my dreams

>My waste of time is better than your waste of time
Ok

>>19422819
inherently related to the fact was all propagate ourselves from our minds rather than from the world.

My favorite math author is Enoch: >>>/sci/13838962

>>19422786
>explain to me why I should devote serious energy to logic when I could instead be a drunken murdering rapist, doing whatever I please without any semblance of abstraction?

Then it becomes a question of religion, and that would totally derail the thread. But luckily it doesn't have to come to that. OP was addressing people who identify as intellectuals but at the same time look down on mathematics. So the point wasn't what you should do in some absolute sense, but rather what you should do to be able to call yourself an intellectual. At least that's how I interpret OP's broader intention.

>>19422894
Then dream anon. The ultimate life we can wish to pursue is the Jovial one.

>instead of an exhaustive knowledge of these space-relations, we therefore obtain only a few arbitrarily communicated results from them, and are in the same position as the man to whom the different effects of an ingenious machine are shown, while its inner connexion and mechanism are withheld from him. we are forced by the principle of contradiction to admit that everything demonstrated by euclid is so, but we do not get to know WHY it is so. we therefore have almost the uncomfortable feeling that we get after a conjuring trick, and in fact most of euclid's proofs are remarkably like such a trick. the truth almost always comes in by the back door, since it follows per accidens from some minor circumstance. frequently, an apagogic proof shuts all doors one after the other, and leaves open only one, through which merely for that reason we must now pass. often, as in the theorem of pythagoras, lines are drawn without our knowing why. it afterwards appears that they were traps, which shut unexpectedly and take prisoner the assent of the learner, who in astonishment has then to admit what remains wholly unintelligible to him in its inner connextion. this happens to such an extent that he can study the whole of euclid throughout without gaining real insight into the laws of spatial relations, but instead of these, he learns by heart only a few of their results... in our view, however, this method of euclid in mathematics can appear only as a very brilliant piece of perversity.

>only after we have learnt from this great mind (kant) that the intuitions or perceptions of space and time are quite different from empirical perception, entirely independent of any impression on the senses, conditioning this and not conditioned by it, i.e., are a priori, and hence not in any way exposed to sense-deception - only then can we see that euclid's logical method of treating mathematics is a useless precaution, a crutch for sound legs. we see that such a method is like a wanderer who, mistaking at night a bright firm road for water, refrains from walking on it, and goes over the rough ground beside it, content to keep from point to point along the edge of the supposed water.
t. schopenhauer

>reading
>Socrates

>>19423022
He probably meant Sophocles, given that he was listing the other Ancient Greek playwrights alongside.

>>19422983
Damn, Arthur would really hate Abstract Algebra and Non-Euclidian geometry (or generally upper level geometries including topologies).

>>19422732
Stop acting elitist if you can't even read Greek. Translation fags need the rope.

>>19423049
He probably doesn't even know what he's on about, given that Hesiod has only two short surviving works and Aesop's fables are children's stories. Homer and Thucydides are kino, but he fails to mention Xenophon, Demosthenes, or others.

>>19422732
>filtered by bk1prop6
It’s over

>>19423141
>Aesop's fables are children's stories
anon, I . . .

Because math is fake and gay

>>19423157
I like the one where Hermes gets the axe.

>>19422732
Anyone who wastes their time reading Euclid to learn Geometry will end up a below average mathematician. These days, no mathematician worth their salt considers it anything more than a curious and immensely influential historical piece, i.e. not a source for learning.

I went to UCLA for Math myself, had Terry Tao as a professor. I asked him specifically about the Elements and he pretty much said the same thing.

>>19422737
fpbp

>>19422737
>Etch circles in the dirt
>Contemporaries believe you're a fucking wizard
Is there any literature discussing just how crushing of an effect standard IQ distribution must have had on the peoples of Antiquity?

>>19423257
Terrence Tao is a brainlet autist.

>>19422732
The Elements sold out before I could get to them reeeee

>>19423457
There was some pseud approximation of the IQ needed to discover certain theorems and such

>>19422983

Philosophers and philosophy are garbage, got it.

>>19423480
Yes, I'm sure you're much better than the smartest living mathematician.

>>19422732
>He's read Socrates
Anon. You are a goof.

>>19423596
>the smartest living mathematician.
Lmaoing at your life
kek
califaggots need to be fucking euthanized.

>>19423609
Bro reading Socrates is easy let me show you:
Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates Socrates

>>19422769
>>19422812

Western civilization from Euclid up through about the late nineteenth century or thereabouts contradicts this view, as it was only then that modern treatments began to degenerate into garbage textbooks by Addison Wesley and the like. That shit (elementary, Euclidian geometry and the human apprehension of it) don't change. About the only defect in Euclid (apart from its incompleteness, for which an ancient can hardly be faulted) is the very inelegant proof of the Pythagorean theorem, which is not "from the book", as mathematicians say. Euclid remains decent for learning how logical trains of thought are used in a (somewhat) rigorous manner to establish -actual knowledge-, as opposed to the silliness that, say, Spinoza turned the mehod toward. Someone else will reply either by claiming that Spinoza's results were correct, or else by dragging Euclid down for certain uses of natural language and unstated assumptions, etc. Someone else will be WRONG.

>>19422812
>>19422817
>>19423257
>thinks reading Euclid is to learn geometry
Do you read Shakespeare to learn grammar? You read the Elements because it's beautiful, a beauty not found in regular geometry textbooks.

>>19424199
Post beautiful passages, then.

>>19424376
>BOOK III PROPOSITION 10. THEOREM.
>One circumference of a circle cannot cut another at more than two points.
>If it be possible, let the circumference ABC cut the circumference DEF at more than two points, namely, at the points B, G, F.
>Take K, the centre of the circle ABC, and join KB, KG, KF.
>Then, because K is the centre of the circle ABC, therefore KB,KG, KF all equal to each other.
>And because within the circle DEF, the point K is taken, from which to the circumference DEF fall more than two equal straight lines KB, KG, KF, therefore K is the centre of the circle DEF.
>But K is also the centre of the circle ABC.
>Therefore the same point is the centre of two circles which cut one another; which is impossible.
>Wherefore, one circumference &c. q.e.d.

>stem niggers see no worth in Euclid
like pearls before swine, lmao.

>>19423022
>>19423609
W-why? I thought he was based.

>>19424199

No, you read the Elements to fucking learn geometry, see above.

>>19422890
Wrong; Get to Grothendieck ASAP.

>>19424451
what does that mean?

i've tried reading it and didn't get much out of it.. it's 2D geometry with an antiquated set of constraints... the postulates make for a novel game of trying to formulate geometric proofs but I don't think I would've gained that much from slogging through it

>>19424451
probably because /sci/ and STEMfags actually study math and know that he has little value for working mathematicians, and that the Elements aren't a badge of honor like they used to be. There's no respect to be gained here, which we both know is the only reason for working through the Elements in 2021. Normalfaggots are too greedy. They want it all, to choose when to engage and when to discard our beloved art. We have to grit our fucking teeth when they try to join us on stage. As if this
>>19424439
unrigorous, vile, putrid mess of undeclared axioms can stand tall against the sheer, surgical beauty of modern geometry, which has taken centuries and some of the most brilliant minds that have ever come to light, to perfect. Yes, you too are a mathematician for processing a passage that isn't up to par for ANY modern-day geometer! Get back into your fucking lane, serf.
>>19425108
This. It's a cute set of volumes. That's it. I find Zorich's Analysis to be MUCH more beautiful, personally. It's also digestible for anyone who has finished a precalculus course.

>>19422737
>sophistry
adhominemcoping

>>19423257
this is some advanced bait

>>19425317
cringe

>>19423049
>>19424474
>they don't know