Mathematics

[Anonymous No.13126885]

Are you actively learning pure mathematics? Why, or why not?

Before you devolve into misconstruing mathematics as being equated to the other 'STE' in STEM, or, at the very least, believe that they are similar in spirit, you should know that it constitutes a completely objective theory, independent of reality, and as such, provides the most coherent collection of abstract thought known to man. A true mastery of mathematics represents a mastery in logic and the capacity to abstract spatial reasoning, and gives a newfound clarity of thought that philosophy would never be able to provide.

[Anonymous No.13126896]

>>13126885

This is interesting, whats it from? Post more? I want to know about how math equations convey theological truths.

[Anonymous No.13126901]

>>13126885
Yes.

>Why?
Because I want to understand why things work the way they do and math is the only area where figuring that out down to foundations is vaguely possible.

[Anonymous No.13126909]

>>13126885
source?

[Anonymous No.13126911]

>>13126885
No. But I'm studying CS and mathematics is a subject. Haven't learned about OP pic and don't think I will though. Also, Physics is pretty much just mathematics.

[Anonymous No.13126917]

>>13126885
>I have never read Kant, nor do I understand the difference between purely abstract reasoning and abstract spacial reasoning

[Anonymous No.13126919]

>>13126885
one step ahead of you; i am studying how Mathematics can even be possible (to us)
>also
ofc; avoiding pure mathematics is a dead give away in philosophy studies

[Anonymous No.13126938]

>>13126896
>>13126911
>>13126909
Unfortunately, I don't know the source. If I had to guess, it's probably the preamble of a textbook on set theory. Modern set theory studies the foundations of mathematics - its axioms, and rather, their independence from other statements in mathematics (and much more, but I'm not an expert on this subject)

>>13126917
Anything Kant has said or done on mathematics or related things are irrelevant and outdated, for the formalism and philosophy of mathematics that we have today is completely different to anything that existed at his time, something that no one could have predicted.

[Anonymous No.13126950]

>>13126909
>>13126896
You could probably find more on that sort of stuff by googling platonism in mathematics

[Anonymous No.13126960]

>>13126950
ok thanks

[Anonymous No.13126973]

>>13126885
>philosophy would never be able to provide.
stop making nonsense comparisons

[Anonymous No.13126980]

>>13126973
instead, let's compare our dick sizes in mathematical terms

>8.7"

[Anonymous No.13126991]

>>13126885
i'm studying computer science now and i hate coding but seriously enjoy pure mathematics, i don't know why this is

[Anonymous No.13126997]

The only thing mathfags deal with in practice is axiomatic proof systems (ie Godel et al). Questions about whether logic is self-consistent or not is of no concern, because it is overwhelmingly self evident empirically. This diverges from platonism somewhat because of the reliance on "2+3=5 because thats what fingers on my hand say"- we understand fundamental axioms as reflection of material world as opposed to platonic "everything is abstract in math". In practice, the total bottom of the axiomatic pyramid is well grounded, and abstractions are built from there.

[Anonymous No.13126998]

>>13126885
The reason those are true is because you assume axioms that make it true. "Meaning" is not a category of mathematics. But mathematics can be chosen to as meaning. This means that meaning is a category of belief. Belief that has to be selected independently and isnt inevitable. First, axioms have to be chosen, decided for. This means that belief is closely interrelated to personal will.

[Anonymous No.13127001]

>>13126938
It's easy to say that when you've never read him. Without Kant, there would be no analytics, hence no logical positivists, hence no "analyticity" for Quine to analyze into the trash can. Kant couldn't have predicted it because much of it is an indirect response to his philosophy of mathematics, which formed the basis for everything that immediately followed. I wouldn't call such an influence "irrelevant."

[Anonymous No.13127005]

>>13126998
It is this will that is "free will" rather than looking at the phenomena through a causal chain. Free will relates to something to the unique disposition of a selector who has to make decisions that are taken on belief.

[Anonymous No.13127018]

>>13126885
>tfw only starting appreciating mathematics after finishing school
surely I'm not the only one?

[Anonymous No.13127031]

>>13126885
I used to. Now I haven't much time for it, ironically because I'm doing a PhD in applied mathematics (it's painful to even think about it).

I was fascinated by mathematics since at least age 6. It's really a entrancing subject, it can have the invulnerable formal purity of poetry, it has the compelling strength of natural forces, yet it leaves open so much room for exploration and creativity if you dwell into it. To me it's not subsumed to art, or philosophy or poetry. At best you can say it's a game (or better yet a family of games, or a what to play with reality) that partakes of some common essence of those three while still being its own thing. One of the pillars of the truth and beauty that can be grasped through sense and language, in a way.

[Anonymous No.13127032]

No. I am, frankly, annoyed by pure mathematics. In college I took classes on statistics, calculus, college algebra and geometry. I learned enough mathematics to basically understand any scientific study that I read, so I am confident in saying that I understand and functionally can use mathematics. However, I have had no reason to use the majority of mathematics I learned for over 10 years. Basic arithmetic is essentially all you need in life unless you go out of your way to work in one of the few jobs that requires anything else. When it comes to pure mathematics, I am simply struck by indifference. Eurler’s identity formula is strictly irrelevant to me and I cannot bring myself to care about it. Applied mathematics is fine and enjoyable, since you can use it to understand medicine, psychology, physics, etc, and so it is reasonable to learn about applied mathematics. That is, those mathematics that actually provide an opportunity to learn about reality. Pure mathematics is unconcerned with reality. At its best it is intellectual masturbation which offers nothing to improve life, and at its worst it is a dogmatic system of quantitative logic which can lead people to grossly misinterpret reality. I don’t give a single fuck what mathematicians say ought to be the case, and they don’t give a single fuck what actually is the case in reality. Pure mathematics is pure sophistry.

[Anonymous No.13127037]

>>13126980
>(pi^3)/2

[Anonymous No.13127052]

>>13127031
>>13127032
ah, the duality of man

[Anonymous No.13127058]

>>13127001
I agree with the general sentiment of your post, but to argue that Kant had a sizeable influence on the actual practice of mathematics in his time (and later) would be to make a very contrived argument imo.

Some mathematicians were probably kantian, and kantism has influenced philosophy of mathematics for centuries, but it's dubious the actual practice of formalizing mathematics owes much to kantism.

Remember the formalist project in mathematics was started among mathematicians and followed from the necessaities of the mathematical practice of the time. It had solid root in earlier (early 19th century) mathematical practice. People would have come to it without the analytics who kinda took from earlier mathematicians (rather than the other way around).

[Anonymous No.13127059]

>>13126998
>>13127005
Meaning has nothing to do with belief, or a mental process in the person "meaning." If I say, "go to the store and get a melon," but the person I order to do so gets a box of cereal instead, I might say "I meant for you to get a melon!" What did my meaning this consist in? Was there a "mental processes" that caused me to mean for him to get a melon? If that were the case, what right do I have to speak to him and act as if he should have known what I meant? He might say: "Oh, sorry, I was thinking about cereal when you said that," or, "I got sidetracked," or he may even show the cereal box and say, "what do you mean? This is a melon."

And, further, how would you even know what you meant if meaning were a mental process? If you say, "Open that," and point to a door, and I ask, "Open what?" you might say "I meant, the door." But if meaning is a totally (even of pointing) independent mental process, how did you even know what you meant to point to when you pointed to the door? Because you "meant" to point to it?

[Anonymous No.13127063]

>>13127018
Math is the worst taught subject in our educational system by far, as there are only few hooks to the kids interested - and most teachers are clueless of those.

Commonly people get entangled with math later on because one of the following - 3d graphics for trigonometry/euclidean geometry/quaternions, cryptography for number/group theory, machine learning for high dimensional function space optimization ... ie some practical STEMlord engineering application demanding some mid tier math understanding, and it triggers autism to explore the field further. This happened historically too, a lot of big names first coming into contact with it through astronomy and practical engineering problems.

[Anonymous No.13127081]

>>13127001
It's easy to say that if you've never read mathematics. The contradicting results of the late 19th century were what lead to a rigorous inspection and hence development of metamathematics in the early 20th century.

'One of the major proposals during the crisis about math's foundations, which remains a significant though minority interest among people working in this area, was deliberately modeled after Kant's view, which was articulated in a systematic way as a basis for thinking about and doing (it had some consequences for how math is done) mathematics--this is Brouwer's "intuitionism."'

- a complete opposite to how mathematics is presented and practiced today.

[Anonymous No.13127098]

>>13127032
>statistics, calculus, college algebra and geometry
> I am confident in saying that I understand and functionally can use mathematics
I'm sorry, but that's a big L from me. You have never practiced or seen or used pure mathematics.

[Anonymous No.13127107]

>>13127032

[Anonymous No.13127115]

>>13127059
If its got nothing to do with belief why did you expect him to bring a melon? I never claimed that belief is equal between two people or that mutual intelligibility is necessary.

[Anonymous No.13127116]

>>13126885
/lit/, at least in my experience, doesn’t really have a good grasp on what research level mathematics entails. It’s mostly creative efforts to understand underlying themes, properties, etc., and it involves lots of social interaction in front of a blackboard.

Also, mathematical logic is a beautiful field, but most of mathematics’ interactions are best described in modern ontology / philosophy of mathematics papers and not really in classic texts. Theory of computation has sort of usurped this idea of physics being the big canonical example of an ontological truth supplied aside mathematics

[Anonymous No.13127129]

>>13127032
The distinction between pure and applied mathematics itself is closer to sophistry than anything in maths and almost anything itt expect your own post.

The main branches of pure mathematics can all be traced down to applied endeavour (and you don't have to go that far back either) with perhaps the exception of arthmetics, which now has manifold application to cryptography. Heck the distinction wouldn't even make sense to any European mathematician born between 1500 and 1750.

Meanwhile people keep stumbling upon unexpected applications of pure mathematics.

Your problem is assuming that since a mathematician considers himself "pure" there's no chance of his work ever giving insight to "reality". Setting aside the problem of ignoring how even pure mathematics is stepped into spatial and quantitative intuition (something that Kant understood well and that is even present in traces in birds and apes), you're giving way to much credit to mathematician's understanding of their own work.

The guy who thought he was merely studying beautiful unappliable geometry unwillingly set the stage for General Relativity. The study of vibrating strings, merely a charming amateur physicists pastime, ended not only providing one of the most important tool of modern engineering, but yielding results in pure arithmetics aswell.

Case in point is the very device you used to write your post. Surely it is a feat of electrical and chemical engineering, but first those disciplines rely a lot on mathematics, and second none of the circuitry and software needed for it to work as it does would exist with such idle inventions as, say, complex algebra (of which Euler's identity is a part).

He who think we can know a priori whether a given theory will ever produces applications should heed Lobatchevsky's words, as well as remember that we never understand our theories that well. The mathematician's work is to do maths, on what people will do of his work he has indeed very little idea.

[Anonymous No.13127132]

>>13127032
But pure math is legitimately exciting. Even in applied mathematics, the pure problems are most fun. Hell, most of applied mathematics tends to bleed into pure work and vice versa. Look at number theory and cryptography

[Anonymous No.13127147]

>>13127032
based

[Anonymous No.13127166]

>>13127115
It's certainly not because I "selected a belief" that he would bring the melon prior to issuing the order or him bringing the melon. I expected him to bring the melon because I had been able to speak with him in English. You could ask, "but why did you expect him to bring the melon upon issuing the order?" i.e. why did you expect him to understand the order? Mainly, because he understands the language. How do I know he understands it? Did he not walk off to the store? There is a very particular reaction when you speak an unfamiliar language to someone. It is not even possible to disobey an order in an unfamiliar language. And if he thought that "melon" meant "box of cereal," then I might correct him, or in the future might orient myself to his idiosyncrasy.

[Anonymous No.13127170]

>>13127098
You know, I get this from math students a lot. Unless you agree with them about absolutely everything, can you share all of the same valuations regarding the field of mathematics, it doesn’t matter how much math you’ve studied Or how well you understand the concepts at play. Inevitably, you “don’t understand mathematics” or you’ve “never done real math”. What absolute bullshit. 1+1=2 is literally pure mathematics.

[Anonymous No.13127177]

>>13127129
This world would be better without the device that I used to write that post. All technology, especially that used in communications, is detrimental to the human species.

[Anonymous No.13127184]

>>13127032
this is you right? >>>/sci/10647406

[Anonymous No.13127189]

>>13126885
>A true mastery of mathematics represents a
>mastery in logic and the capacity to abstract spatial reasoning
I doubt this is true, being good at mathematics is just a skill, logic and reasoning are separate skills though mathematics, logic and reasoning overlap alot, I have seen or heard of people who had almost slight mental disability and could not use logic or reasoning in anything other than hard math. Then again it depends on your definition of mastery.

[Anonymous No.13127193]

>>13127177
based and tedpilled

[Anonymous No.13127197]

>>13127170
>I get this from math students a lot.
Look dude, I know how you feel. But the thing is, you just don't know anything about actual pure mathematics. You don't understand calculus if you've only taken calculus. It'd be equivalent to me claiming that I understand what literature entails after I learnt my abc's in kindergarden. Sure, writing your first sentence is 'literature' then. It's not meant to be putting you down, it's just that you don't have enough knowledge to even know that there is something else out there, yet you have the audacity to claim that you do.

[Anonymous No.13127211]

>>13126885
>Are you actively posting on the wrong board? Why, or why not?

>Before you devolve into misconstruing mathematics as being equated to the other 'STE' in STEM, or, at the very least, believe that they are similar in spirit, you should know that it constitutes a completely objective theory, independent of reality, and as such, deserves being posted on every board, even /lit/.. A true mastery of mathematics represents a mastery in logic and the capacity to abstract spatial reasoning, and gives a newfound clarity of thought that philosophy would never be able to provide. Thus, /lit/ is now a math board because I’m too fucking stupid to click the right tab.

Fixed.

[Anonymous No.13127220]

>>13126885
We've all read Gravity's Rainbow here, son, /lit/ probably knows more about math than /sci/

[Anonymous No.13127238]

>>13126885
No
And the insecurity of your post confirms that this is the right decision

[Anonymous No.13127243]

>>13127032
Euler's Formula is at the heart of the FFT...

[Anonymous No.13127247]

>>13127220

[Anonymous No.13127249]

>>13127247
hey prove me wrong :)

[Anonymous No.13127250]

>>13127166
There is no belief involved in your expectation that a person who understands the language would follow your order? If thats the case you would be completely agnostic that anyone who understands the language would do anything. Besides I think you read Wittgenstein and are using meaning in a profou dly different context I used it in my original posts.

[Anonymous No.13127252]

>>13127197

Okay, so what you're saying is that taking classes on mathematics, doing mathematics equations, reading mathematics textbooks, etc. are not mathematics at all? So, what exactly is mathematics? I know quite a few mathematics teachers at various levels, and if what you're saying is accurate, none of them knew anything about mathematics. So who does know math? One or two obscure professors? Excuse me while I continue not to give a single fuck about abstract mathematics that have no relevance to me in any way and which are naught but circlejerking sophistry, presupposing the validity of its fundamental axioms and demanding unquestioning adherence. Dude, I've formally studied symbolic and sentential logic, I'm familiar with all of the "laws", I know how fucking syllogisms work. It would be absurd for me to say "but I've never done logic" just because I haven't researched some obscure opinion that some asshole in Germany made up which probably isn't even accurate to reality.

So, give me some exact and clear goalposts. If reading dozens of textbooks and taking mathematics classes does nothing to teach mathematics, what does? What exactly should I do in order to establish that I "understand" mathematics?

[Anonymous No.13127253]

>math is SOOO beautiful bro like holy FUCK
>have you heard of yoolers formula?
>check out this identity I got tattooed on my back!

[Anonymous No.13127254]

>>13127238
I'm just insecure in general, doesn't have to do anything with math

[Anonymous No.13127261]

Ayy I've just started teaching myself mathematics again for my upcoming masters in Computer Engineering.

I had shit teachers in school and abandoned the subject and never touched maths during my undergraduate degree but now that I'm teaching it to myself I'm finding I enjoy it.

With the right resources and attitude anyone can learn it and we all should as well as pursuing the humanities. We should all strive to be renaissance men.

[Anonymous No.13127264]

>>13127253
>i posted a wojack with his mouf open mommy!

[Anonymous No.13127267]

>>13127261
>masters in Computer Engineering.
Oh Christ, dude.

[Anonymous No.13127269]

>>13127253
>yoolers

[Anonymous No.13127274]

>>13127253
>not appreciating math
spotted the pl*b

[Anonymous No.13127283]

I learned a fair bit of math studying physics as an undergrad but I just treated it as a means to the end of passing my physics courses. I've always wanted to go back and learn it properly for its own sake but I don't have the time.

[Anonymous No.13127290]

>>13127184

Yes. None of those people were able to bring forward an adequate defense of mathematics. I have yet to find a single person who can, and I go out of my way to talk to mathematicians regularly. It's a bullshit field of study with occasional correlates to reality, its fundamental axioms are not beyond question, and it is perfectly reasonable to demand justification for those mathematical "truths" that people accept as hard facts. Instead of sperging out and saying how dumb someone is whenever they challenge mathematics, mathematicians would be better off actually formulating defenses of their positions. Unfortunately mathematicians can't do basic sentential logic, since they're too preoccupied with their fictional numeric view of reality. It's really sad.

[Anonymous No.13127301]

>>13127252
lol, just lol. you just keep digging yourself in a hole and exposing your profound ignorance of the subject. I'm not saying I'm an expert in anything else, but I certainly don't go around telling others how useless their field is (despite the fact that everything that you use in your daily life involves complex math (tiers beyond what you think you know)).

What you have been taught is how to follow instructions. You were told that an integral measures area under a curve, perhaps a hand waving explanation of how it works, and 20 different methods of how to compute it so you could pass the exam then forget about it. A machine can do this, and so can you. Impressive.

[Anonymous No.13127303]

>>13127290
>I have yet to find a single person who can, and I go out of my way to talk to mathematicians regularly.

It's not our fault you're retarded...

[Anonymous No.13127304]

>>13127261
if i were you id be frightened

[Anonymous No.13127312]

>>13127252
>ive done the bear minimum
>im qualified to say that i know it
you dont know any math until youve started a masters in it

>I know quite a few mathematics teachers at various levels
you know 3 things all at a beginners level

what about abstract math is "circlejerking sophistry"?
what do you even know about abstract math
do you know what differential geometry is
do you know algebraic topology
do you know normal topology
do you know literally anything beyond a freshmen course in college
because you have yet to demonstrate any actual mathematical knowledge

[Anonymous No.13127319]

>>13127267

What?

[Anonymous No.13127320]

Can anonyone point me to a good modal logic intro with _good_ examples of its applications?

[Anonymous No.13127321]

Yes, I am. I took no math classes after 6th grade and thought I was shit at it for most of my life, but recently I've started to fall in love with it and found that I have somewhat of a knack for it. I'm studying what I can while in college and also trying to teach myself all the algebra, trig, calculus, etc I missed out on in high school in my own time.
My independent study curriculum mostly consists of Khan Academy, 3Blue1Brown videos, Euclid's Elements, and Brilliant. Once I have the prerequisites down I'm going to buy Spivak's Calculus

[Anonymous No.13127332]

>>13127304

Don't worry I'm shitting myself.

[Anonymous No.13127347]

>>13127252
I'm not that guy but I'll bite, I've never put much time into math though.
The overwhelming amount of mathematics textbooks for your basic highschool-undergraduate courses don't in any way explain how mathematics actually work, you just get graded based on the rote memorization of certain solutions. Visit libgen and download Courant's calculus and then compare it to Stewart's calculus(most popular text today), it's virtually an entirely different subject, if you took your classes in the last 30 years I can virtually guarantee that you didn't learn a think about actual mathematics, you just memorized solutions to problems.
It's as if you took a driving class and suddenly think you're a mechanic, you don't understand how the machine works.

also all of your courses were brainlet-tier shit that only americans have trouble with, most students even in the U.S. take "college algebra" in highschool

[Anonymous No.13127352]

>>13127301

>profound ignorance
I literally asked you for the exact goalposts to be used in order to establish understanding of mathematics. You can go on saying what "understanding mathematics" isn't, but that doesn't do anyone any good and you know it. Without those goals being clear, you can simply move them, and that's unacceptable.

>useless
I never said mathematics was useless. Indeed, once mathematics is used, it is inherently applied mathematics! And, as I noted, mathematics applied to actual things in reality is useful and rational. Without an object of reference, numbers are literally meaningless, which is why I am uninterested in pure mathematics. You can go on claiming how I'm ignorant or you can demonstrate that I'm incorrect, but please don't think you're doing both.

>A machine can do this, and so can you. Impressive.
All you have been taught can be performed by a machine, too. And machines can do things that you can't. It would be very impressive to see someone with the physical strength of an industrial-grade trash compactor, for example, so I'm not sure where you're going with that statement.

[Anonymous No.13127355]

>>13127347
Stewart Calc is just shit

[Anonymous No.13127362]

>>13127321

Bro look up I.M. Gelfand's books. Very cheap but very good teaching tool. Also recommend Serge Lang's Basic Mathematics.

[Anonymous No.13127366]

>>13127352
>Without an object of reference, numbers are literally meaningless
>he thinks abstract math is numbers
you just keep showing that you know literally nothing at all about mathematics

[Anonymous No.13127371]

>>13127352
You have no idea how scientific progression is made, apparently.

/sci/ really is the dumbest board

[Anonymous No.13127389]

>>13127371
>/sci/
we're on /lit/ right now

[Anonymous No.13127400]

>>13127301
OP implied that math is gonna give me some profound insights, but at most I'm getting a boring rocket and some other shit that's slightly improves my quality of life.

[Anonymous No.13127403]

>>13127389
can you not read the threads you're posting in?

[Anonymous No.13127406]

>>13127371
He is right. Science is conditioned by experiment. Scientific progress certainly cannot ever apply purely to mathematical formalism.

[Anonymous No.13127415]

>>13127312

>you don't know any math until you've started a masters in it
That's elitist and absurd. You don't need even a single accreditation to understand physics, philosophy, medicine, etc. I literally know people without a high school diploma who know more about medical science than doctors with M.D.s. Try again.

>What about abstract math is "circlejerking sophistry"?
A number only has meaning when it has an object of reference, i.e. "There are two cars in front of me". Saying "There are two in front of me" is a meaningless statement unless its object of reference is implied from a previous sentence. Applied mathematics -- you know, the stuff you read in economics or medicine journals -- has an object of reference and thus can be used in a string of meaningful statements. Pure mathematics has no object of reference; it is therefore meaningless. You have only one life, and it is a short one; why would you spend any of that time engaging in a strictly meaningless study?

>Do you know...
Nope. I never had any reason to learn those things, and I have never had any occasion to use them in any setting in my entire life. I can't say the same thing about physics, philosophy, medical science, or literature.

>freshman course
Yeah, I took a few sophmore courses too. Then I stopped because it was a waste of my goddamn time and money.

>you have yet to demonstrateany actual mathematical knowledge
That was never my goal, and I never said it was.

[Anonymous No.13127417]

>>13127406
>implying science doesn't rely on math
>implying all science is applied even

bruh

[Anonymous No.13127419]

>>13127362
Will do, thanks anon!

[Anonymous No.13127422]

>>13127366

I doubt you know anything about mathematics, since you have demonstrated no ability other than to say "You don't know anything about mathematics".

[Anonymous No.13127429]

>>13127415
lol midwit think he hard

[Anonymous No.13127437]

>>13126885
no math is gay and pseud-tier

[Anonymous No.13127438]

>>13127417
Im saying mathematical formalism alone in a vacuum isnt science. Thats not to say it doesnt play a huge part in science.

[Anonymous No.13127450]

>>13127438
>Thats not to say it doesnt play a huge part in science.
in part thanks to the foundations laid out under pure math lol pseud.

[Anonymous No.13127463]

>>13127352
I can't tell you what actual mathematics is because as they say, 'mathematics is not a spectator sport'. You don't read mathematics, you do mathematics. Yes, I can tell you, "mathematics is ring theory, algebraic geometry and number theory" and that wouldn't tell you anything. It builds up and up on itself so much that to explain and understand what's at the top, you need years of experience. Only when you're high enough can you look down and realize what it all means.

>once mathematics is used, it is inherently applied mathematics!
So if someone reads a philosophy book and changes his life in accordance to its teachings, does it make it a guide?

>Without an object of reference, numbers are literally meaningless
So is all of fiction and art useless and a waste of time?

>All you have been taught can be performed by a machine
It can't. A machine would not be able to generate new theorems that require new techniques, nor provide examples.Could a com'puter perform the same job as a philosopher?

[Anonymous No.13127466]

oy vey zmir

[Anonymous No.13127476]

>>13127450
How does that disprove the statement that math formalism in a vacuum isnt science?

[Anonymous No.13127480]

>>13127476
it disproves the notion that pure math is useless

[Anonymous No.13127487]

>Fermat's last theorem has been solved

[Anonymous No.13127488]

>>13127400
You think your cellphone or computer operates on simple arithmetical operations? Or that the newest 5G and other technological improvements have been brought up with simple calculus? EVERYTHING that is created nowadays, whether it be in a factory, or an office, or software, is developed using complex mathematical techniques at some point. If anything, rockets are problably use some of the more simplistic mathematics.

[Anonymous No.13127492]

>>13127480
I dont disagree with that at all.

[Anonymous No.13127500]

The problem with school math is that the taught subjects have no relation whatsoever to anything the pupil already knows, so it seems irrelevant. Unless you are some IQ9000 STEMlord who can somehow see beauty in this stuff on its own, you'll never show an interest at that stage.

[Anonymous No.13127511]

>>13127415
>That's elitist and absurd. You don't need even a single accreditation to understand physics, philosophy, medicine, etc. I literally know people without a high school diploma who know more about medical science than doctors with M.D.s. Try again.
That's because they're fields grounded in reality. It's only the intelligence of man in a platonistic realm that we can go to new depths. I'm sorry you're not smart enough to follow

[Anonymous No.13127514]

>>13127492
The guy you agreed with does

[Anonymous No.13127516]

>>13127422
that was another anon, seems like more than one agrees with me

[Anonymous No.13127527]

>>13127511
>platonist
>in 2019
>calls other people unintelligent
wew

[Anonymous No.13127535]

>>13127488
And all of those things I can do without
I thought OP promised me some profound knowledge about life and all I'm getting is some useful gadgets

[Anonymous No.13127538]

>>13127500
It's more the fact that math in school is taught by people that don't understand math. Elementary and high school teachers are the type of people that go for math education degrees, if that, and it shows by the fact that they have no fucking clue about what theyre doing.

[Anonymous No.13127548]

I wish I knew how to math. Never did a single piece of homework and had bad teachers that never spent any time going into the practical or philosophical reasons for the formulas. I don't even understand way order of operations works.

[Anonymous No.13127558]

>>13127535
No, you just claimed some retard tier shit that the only thing math could affect you in would be rockets. And for math to not affect you at all, you'd need to live secluded in a forest. Just because math is also useful for real life doesn't change anything about what I said. But it's up to you to find out, I can't give you insight to your own self.

[Anonymous No.13127560]

>>13127500
I saw the beauty in figuring out how many apples johnny has if he dives into a pool with 33ml of water.

[Anonymous No.13127562]

>>13127415
>You don't need even a single accreditation to understand physics, philosophy, medicine, etc
you can *think* that you understand physics or medicine without any accreditation
but you dont
>I literally know people without a high school diploma who know more about medical science than doctors with M.D.s.
pic

>Pure mathematics has no object of reference; it is therefore meaningless.
also pic, holy shit
you can say 2 without putting a unit on it you fucking child
given the empty set i can form a disjoint union with itself, giving a set of cardinality 2
i can imagine 2 of anything at all when im talking about 2
very basic stuff you're struggling with

you should atleast understand the concept of an equivalence relation and equivalence classes if you know some logic
you can form an equivalence class of "everything that has only 2 things in it"
and just use that for 2


>I have never had any occasion to use them in any setting in my entire life. I can't say the same thing about physics, philosophy, medical science, or literature.
i dont care about your wasted life
you not using something isnt a good reason to say that its useless

also, we all know you arent actually talking about physics
you mean kinematics at most, which is just algebra and calculus
you dont know medical science, the human body is much too complicated to come to an understanding without regular study
furthermore, philosophy and literature are useless for you if youre this mentally bankrupt

[Anonymous No.13127570]

>>13127403
he isnt a regular sci poster
he just posted an awful thread yesterday

>>13127438
no one claims math is science
theres a reason its STEM not SET

[Anonymous No.13127577]

>>13127548

You can teach yourself man! Don't build it up in your head too much so that you think it's impossible. Most maths teachers are shit because they don't focus on understanding they just emphasise memorisation. There are a few good booklist and suggestions I can post for you when I'm home if you'd like.

[Anonymous No.13127584]

This is unrelated but I see how many fell for the CS meme. Most of you are going to join our liberal arts neets because it is saturated. The same thing is being done with trades. There is no point in even studying it anymore. Might as well study pure math and combine it with philosophy or become a doctor of medicine.

[Anonymous No.13127592]

>>13127570
>he isnt a regular sci poster
sure looks like your average sci post lmao

[Anonymous No.13127595]

>>13127558
"only rockets" was a turn of phrase to say exactly what you said in the post following it.
OP was being facetious and I responded in kind.
Honestly I'm really thankful for all the things math has given me, but as a subject it kinda bores me, because it will never give me any knowledge that goes further than those things.

[Anonymous No.13127602]

>>13127577
I know nothing about math, I felt good about myself because I retaught myself how to do long division on some children's practice site.

[Anonymous No.13127603]

>>13127577
Im not the same anon but this is something that upsets me. I was never great at it but now at 27 I finally understand things I did not back then. Although now it seems it is too late to devote myself to math not because I couldnt but because there is so little time between free time and wagecucking. Before someone accuse me of wasting time now I am posting here when I take breaks from reading or when I have to shit.

[Anonymous No.13127608]

>>13127592
thats only because sci is the schizo containment board
so they look like a very prominent feature

[Anonymous No.13127621]

>>13126885

i dont know and never have known what stem stands for

[Anonymous No.13127623]

>>13127602
Same. I felt enlightened when I understood basic geometry and how it relates to numbers. Yes I am dumb.

[Anonymous No.13127626]

>>13127548
Do the khan academy arithmetic+pre algebra and then start pic related.
If you want to get god-tier at basic arithmetic then look at:
>Benjamin's secrets of mental math
The book has a shit name but the guy who wrote it is very legit
>Dead Reckoning: Calculating without Instruments
deals with more than just arithmetic, the most advanced "mental calculation" book that I know about.

[Anonymous No.13127641]

>>13127584

I'm only doing a STEM subject cause I'm trying to get into patent law and they prefer you to have some tech knowledge.

I don't plan on getting into the industry but the knowledge about the subject is nice.

[Anonymous No.13127651]

>>13127577
Im literally terified of maths. I have good pattern recognition, excellent conceptual understanding, score high on IQ tests but theres something about seeing math symbols or an equation that gives me nearly a panic attack. Guessing it has to do with something about my earliest school experiences with math. For example I feel extremely confident about figuring out the most convoluted Hegel paragraphs and actually understanding them but if I dont easily see a solution to maths or if it looks complex from the get-go my confidence drops so low Im literally paralyzed. Wish I could grow out of it. I might even understand what I have to do but just seeing the actual numbers and symbols terrefies me. Ive noticed some people get upset or even angry at extremely convoluted philosophical reasoning but thats always been really easy for me and when its not I take more of an approach of "ok what does this guy want to fuck me with, Ill figure it out" and I do in 3-5 read-throughs. Wish I had the same mental state for numbers.

[Anonymous No.13127653]

>>13127626
That chart is for unemployed neets. Nobody else has 20 years of free time to get to the end.

[Anonymous No.13127661]

>>13127602
>>13127603

You always have to start from somewhere. You can do it you just need the right resources and the right mindset and it'll come. Don't put yourselves down so much you're definitely capable.

[Anonymous No.13127678]

Can someone post a book to start with math from the groud up? I cant bring myself to watch khan academy and deal with their systems and I have some time when I commute by train.

[Anonymous No.13127684]

>>13127626

This is a great chart.

>>13127653

You're not supposed to work through every book in the whole chart man. After the fundamentals you can pick and choose the advanced disciplines.

[Anonymous No.13127688]

>>13127653
The chart covers about 3-4 years of an undergraduate degree, if you include *one* specialization.

[Anonymous No.13127694]

>>13127678
>>13127684
>>13127626
>>13127548
Same chart but slightly improved

[Anonymous No.13127701]

>>13127678

Check out this chart. >>13127626

The Gelfand books are extremely cheap and you can find the solutions to the problems in it online.

[Anonymous No.13127708]

>>13127651
I was the exact same as you up until uni. I had no idea how to do maths and somehow passed high school. I picked civil engineering for my bachelors. I don't have any good advice for you to stop being scared of maths. You just gotta grind through it and after a while it becomes chill. Basically once you've learned something it becomes easy

[Anonymous No.13127718]

>>13127694

I think Spivak's Calculus is pretty good aswell to be honest.

[Anonymous No.13127722]

>>13127694
Thanks anon, haven't seen that one. The stewart recommendation did bug me a bit, not that he's unreadable.

[Anonymous No.13127735]

Is there a point in studying math if one is not going to uni or apply it to any work? Is it worth it as a hobby the same way as philosophy? Can it bring such value to my life?

[Anonymous No.13127753]

>>13127722
>>13127718
The problem is that while Apostol and Spivak are certainly more didactic, most people's first exposure to calculus is in that computational and 'intuitive but ultimately unexplaining' manner, which is why even if Stewart isn't exactly great, it's good if you've never really done any math beforehand

[Anonymous No.13127757]

>>13127735
math is far more interesting and elucidating than philosophy

[Anonymous No.13127767]

>>13127735

I think the study of maths and philosophy are both equally valid as academic hobbies. You certainly don't need to take it to an advanced level. To link it to Philosophy, maths and logic are quite intertwined so it would help if you were interested in Wittgenstein and whatnot. I think it's good knowledge for being w generally well rounded individual.

[Anonymous No.13127770]

>>13127735
I'm wondering this as well. Just because it is possible to formalize things, it doesn't have to be sensible/economical

[Anonymous No.13127771]

>>13127735
No. Dont let yourself be memed into reading and studying Euclid by the tards at /lit/

[Anonymous No.13127785]

>>13127132
both extremely gay autism

[Anonymous No.13127799]

>>13127753

Yeah I would agree with that but I think Spivak is accessible enough while also setting you up to advance further if you want to if you see what I mean. I typically thought that Stewart would leave you needing to find another resource afterwards or perhaps result in someone relying on reference material maybe.

[Anonymous No.13127805]

>>13127735
It lets you reach maximum pseud levels but inserting mathematical notation into general speech. I'm sure almost no one on /lit/ had a clue what was being discussed when the OP post said X can be successfully applied but Y can't be. I myself only think X is vaguely related to trigonometry and have no idea what Y is.

[Anonymous No.13127818]

>>13127799
I haven't read spivak so I don't really have an opinion on it. Since I learnt calculus in high school (normal in UK), I dont know how others would feel jumping straight to a more rigorous one. But as I said, never read it, but I was wary of putting it since I heard it was hard.

[Anonymous No.13127828]

>>13127735
Mathematics is the single most common pre-requisite in the world for understanding how theories, engines, machines, inventions of all sorts function. It's extremely relevant to both abstract theory and physical invention, plus it's quite fun when you're doing it on your own.
In one context, math is very similar to literature: universities&schools ruin it as a subject and put people off of it for the rest of their lives, so if you haven't attempted studying it on your own, I suggest that you try it out.

[Anonymous No.13127829]

>>13127805
>I'm sure almost no one on /lit/ had a clue what was being discussed when the OP post said X can be successfully applied but Y can't be.
thats because OP just made that up
it isnt math or anything

[Anonymous No.13127830]

>>13127805
What OP post? What X and Y?

[Anonymous No.13127848]

>>13127818

I like Spivak because he's systematic and things are explained well but with a good pace. He tells you what you need to know, how to use that knowledge and then why you use it that way and what it tells you and he does it all in a very ordered and consistent way. I can't ask for anymore than that from a maths book. I can't speak for Apostol though.

[Anonymous No.13127853]

>>13127830
The picture in the OP post, the X is the math thing that was written after "2+3=5" and Y is the following math thing that supposedly only has a practical representation in a perfect universe.

[Anonymous No.13127856]

>>13127757
This is subjective.
>>13127767
This is makes sense. Would math enhance my logic and make me a better person? Would it help me make better arguments? Would it help me to gain insights into the fundamentals of the world or help me with practical philosophy like stoicism or phenomenology?
>>13127770
The economical seems to be the most popular argument and I cant bring myself to care about it as much. Even though I would like to have a good job it is nearly impossible for me to get anywhere out of misery. I take refuge in philosophy and if math would help me understand the nature of the world or make progress I would consider it. It seems there are some arguments for it but I think I need more.
>>13127771>>13127805
This is overly memetic response and I cant know for sure right now so I will stay open minded.
>>13127828
I am willing to try it out but I need a reason. The only thing that appeals to me what you said is that is helps understanding theories? I dont care about machines because that is not my expertize and never really cared about that aspect. Can math help me understand something about reality, the world, ontological, epistemological, even metaphysical topics? I am never going to use it for any machines, programming, inventions and such, I am not an engineer, it is not in my nature.

[Anonymous No.13127863]

>>13126911
Physics is absolutely not "pretty much just mathematics", physics only covers a slice of the broad array of maths in existence.

[Anonymous No.13127868]

As technology rises i observe a general increase in awareness of the importance of math.

[Anonymous No.13127873]

>>13127856
>This is subjective.
so is implying that philosophy has significant worth as a hobby

[Anonymous No.13127879]

>>13127856
>This is overly memetic response
Sophistry isn't a meme. If you can convince people to take you seriously and think you are smart you can have a lot of influence. You will get more (you)s if you write with serious prose with proper punctuation that goes beyond using commas.

[Anonymous No.13127883]

>>13127856
>it is nearly impossible for me to get anywhere out of misery.

Probably because you're bad at math. Practice!

[Anonymous No.13127885]

>>13127873
It is therefore I need an argument instead of an opinion. I am not interested in the game of finding weak spots for the sake of criticism or superiority. I want to see a reason to do it or not to do it, not a statement without rational explanation.

[Anonymous No.13127886]

>>13127063
A Mathematician's Lament by Paul Lockheart basically covers that. He did two iterations on that specific idea; one's a paper that's about 20 pages and one's a book, but the book more or less just stretches the paper out and doesn't add much of substance to the core idea. He gets into what he considers a more ideal way of teaching various forms of maths through subsequent books like Measurement.

[Anonymous No.13127893]

How the fuck do calculators work? Shit has to be magic.

[Anonymous No.13127901]

>>13127863
I donate to you this relation: {(1,1), (2,2), (2,1)}

[Anonymous No.13127905]

>>13127879
I just thought your response was all about memes. I dont care if people see me as smart or not. I cant write more properly because Im not that good at english.

>>13127883
How would math get me out of misery?

[Anonymous No.13127911]

>>13127885
you havent given the reasons you like philosophy so how am i meant to explain a significant portion of mathematics without a starting point

[Anonymous No.13127924]

>>13127893
Nowadays it's with chips and computers. They were mechanic back in the day. Pascal made the first calculator in the world (and /lit/ still despises him, YIKES!)

[Anonymous No.13127936]

>>13127911
Because philosophy is not a point that matters. It is math that matters. The starting point is to find reason to study math beside using it for economic gains. Is there a reason to study math if someone is not engineer/scientist and dont want to program or such? You dont need philosophy to give a reasonable answer to this. It would take too long to analyse and take into consideration all the theory I would spout here as reference point otherwise.

[Anonymous No.13127942]

>>13127853
Oh, it's a bit hard to explain its significance but I can deliberate a bit. Vsauce's video on infinity is unironically a really good explanation of some of the things that are going on (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88).).

Basically, the idea starts with the fact that there are infinities of different sizes. The first thought that comes into play is "what does it mean to count?". You can think of counting objects as putting the set of all objects in one-to-one correspondence with a set of whole numbers. For example, 5 cars can be put in correspondence with the set {1,2,3,4,5} by assigning a number to each car. We can define counting to be the smallest set of whole numbers with which we have this correspondence.

Now consider an infinite amount of objects. We can define counting now as putting it in correspondence with the set of numbers {1,2,3,4,...} all the way up to infinity. However, now we have the following result:

There are as many numbers in {....., -4,-3,-2,-1, 1,2,3,4,.....} (extending to infinity in both ways) as there are n {1,2,3,4,....}.
You can view the correspondence by assigning 1 to 1, 2 to -1, 3 to 2, 4 to -2, etc...

So in this way, we see that infinity loses intuition on size. We can add infinity to infinity and still get the same infinity. We can multiply infinity by infinity and the same. However, it turns out that all the numbers in the number line as we know it cannot be put into this correspondence. So we in fact have a bigger infinity there.

Therefore, the whole gyst of what the OP image talks about is that if we exponentiate an infinity by another infinity, sometimes we can get a bigger infinity, which is a really extremely hard thing to show. Since these infinities don't really exist within our existence, it's hard to rationalize why we should care.

[Anonymous No.13127986]

>>13127290
>mathematicians haven't managed to change my feelings or convinced me to use "sophistry" in a way that means things
mathematics btfo

[Anonymous No.13128021]

>>13127886
>A Mathematician's Lament
Excellent essay. It sounds a bit conflicting regarding the motivator issue. First, it states:

>Attempts to present mathematics as relevant to daily life inevitably appear forced and contrived: “You see kids, if you know algebra then you can figure out how old Maria is if we know that she is two years older than twice her age seven years ago!”
But then:
>Mathematics is about problems, and problems must be made the focus of a students mathematical life. Painful and creatively frustrating as it may be, students and their teachers should at all times be engaged in the process— having ideas, not having ideas, discovering patterns, making conjectures, constructing examples and counterexamples, devising arguments,and critiquing each other’s work.

This doesn't sound right to me, especially given the apt comparisons to music and art earlier on. A child is not, at first, captivated by *problems* inherent to making art or music, it is captivated by the aesthetic result only because he's completely oblivious to the process. Only later on the artist is captivated by the *abstract process* of making art. I posit that there's still strong need for a "hook" for most people to get into math, and this hook must induce strong sense of awe, the same that gets a musician into musical theory voluntarily.

In case of math, the textbook "real world" problems are utterly boring and contrived indeed - but that's exactly the issue. Why not start straight away with somewhat harder, but infinitely more interesting tricks, fe statistics - card counting, ballot birthday paradoxes, oblivious transfer, trivial ciphers. A fun parlor trick with fairly obvious result, but still looking almost like magic to anyone unaware of how it works - thus prompting strong sense of curiosity to probe into how it works.

[Anonymous No.13128055]

>>13128021
I don't think most children are captivated by any academic subject. To say anything meaningful we'd probably need to look at prodigies and what captivated them, and that might not even be something consistent. It seems as plausible to me that mathematical prodigies were captivated by asking questions then realizing they could figure out the answer as anything else.

[Anonymous No.13128072]

>>13128021
>Why not start straight away with somewhat harder, but infinitely more interesting tricks, fe statistics - card counting, ballot birthday paradoxes, oblivious transfer, trivial ciphers.
none of those are interesting tho

[Anonymous No.13128090]

>>13128072
I had an entire probabilities/statistics course and it's by far the most fun in math I've had. Highly recommended to anyone

[Anonymous No.13128093]

>>13127116
So, what is it? What's the point?

[Anonymous No.13128102]

>>13127250
If by "meaning is a category of belief," you just mean that you believe what you mean as far as you mean it, you have to believe that the words you're saying have meaning, I agree. But you can mean something without "believing it" in every sense of the phrase. If I'm an atheist, but want to spare a "believer's" feelings, I could say "There could be a God," and this would be a meaningful statement (I would in that sense mean it), but I myself might not believe it. I shouldn't have said meaning has "nothing to do with belief," it is very similar to it, but I don't think anymore that meaning a sentence requires some kind of ineffable mental processes that causes the sentence to be imparted with meaning. But if that isn't what you're claiming, fuck me, I guess. When you say "mathematics can be chosen to as [not sure what this means, "have"?] meaning," are you saying that math can be considered worthwhile? That's true, and if you're saying anyone can consider whatever they like to be important, I agree completely.
But yes I am reading PI and I just want an excuse to talk about "meaning" in that way

[Anonymous No.13128105]

>>13128093
42

[Anonymous No.13128116]

Can someone please tell me what math beyond arithmetic and trig is used for? Seriously is it that hard to give a practical example? I math not actually used in science?

[Anonymous No.13128119]

>>13128072
Well, the idea is to up the ante compared to the contrived "Maria". Counting cards is useful and interesting to a kid interested in playing cards. A kid interested in weapons might be more interested in ICBM trajectories. The idea is that a kid at some point is captivated with something, and inevitably asks "how?" and from there you get an avalanche from the real world into deep theory if there's strong mathematical basis underneath. Think how Wittgenstein went from engineering problems of piston engine all the way to sperging about fundamental principles of math, and pretty much forgot about the original "hook" and even the actual math inbetween - but the hook was there, never the less.

[Anonymous No.13128144]

>>13128093
you cant accurately describe the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to someone who hasn't seen it for themselves

[Anonymous No.13128149]

>>13127893
Logic gates, son

[Anonymous No.13128153]

I have a PhD in physics theory but most people would call me a pure mathematican for my interest in foundations. But irl I do statistics work for Augmented Reality (Bayesian inference of poses... hey I even work with quaternions on a day to day basis).
Just saw this thread now and it's super long already. Is it worth reading up?

>>13127032
>I heard that there's a thing called music, checked out one of those things they called a "song" but decided then decided to live without audio input from there on
This is what this sounds. If you don't enjoy doing/consuming math, doesn't mean you need to talk down on it. Mathematics isn't a hammer - read up some Heidegger too :P

[Anonymous No.13128171]

>>13128116
People have been giving you the typical examples all thread. Number theory is used for crypto which for instance allows you to use credit cards. Coding lets you send messages that aren't pure static. Physics is about reducing observations to mathematical systems. High level algorithms are math.

[Anonymous No.13128172]

>>13128116
Do you think science is just circle jerking? Almost anything in science is used or can be used or will be used in the future.

For example, anything that has do to with electrical circuits basically functions due to complex numbers being a solution of differential equations induced from LRC circuits. Same can be said for the modelling of aerodynamics of your car, or an airplane. The captcha you solve before you post is being used by google to build 'intelligent' machines that can learn how to recognize certain street objects. This uses a lot of linear algebra, optimisation techniques, perhaps even state of the art stuff like topological optimisation. Topology is being used to model DNA data too. Every sort of encryption relies on how number theory works. GPS works because of error-correcting codes which require a lot of abstract algebra to create and optimize. Also for any signal.

[Anonymous No.13128176]

>>13128116
>Can someone please tell me what math beyond arithmetic and trig is used for?
Classical Mechanics is basically all just Calculus
General Relativity is basically all just Differential Geometry
Quantum Mechanics is (not entirely) based on Group Theory and Abstract Algebra
Cryptography is basically all just Number Theory
Number Theory is basically Algebraic Geometry

Math is used literally everywhere in science

[Anonymous No.13128177]

OP's pic used quotations incorrectly

It should read
>"mere philosophy."

Clearly this board is still at a reading level below mine

[Anonymous No.13128186]

>>13127577
Post your books kid

[Anonymous No.13128188]

>>13128153
>Is it worth reading up?
what do you think

[Anonymous No.13128207]

>>13128153
>ituitionistic
>kuck
all checks out

[Anonymous No.13128214]

>>13126911
>Physics is pretty much just mathematics.
From a bystanders perspective, yes

[Anonymous No.13128231]

>>13128214
>chemistry is pretty much just physics
Reductionist jumping a rank? Well I never!

[Anonymous No.13128257]

>>13127107
OP could learn a thing or two by reading through this with his self awareness in hand

[Anonymous No.13128286]

>>13126885
I'm only really interested in mathematics and science such that I can use it in some practical way.

[Anonymous No.13128482]

>>13128102
I think we are using "meaning" here very differently- In my original two posts, I assumed it was clear based on the rest of the content that by "meaning" I mean something resembling a "worldview" or a way to interpret "the world". I was not at all concerned by a technical, really quite narrow usage of that word (I suppose Wittgenstein-ian, I'm only semi-familiar with his concepts and definitely not in depth). I'm struggling to see anything in your writing that I'd disagree with but I don't think what you're saying relates all that closely to what I intended. "Mathematics can be chosen as meaning". What I'm saying is that mathematics doesn't inherently have meaning. Or if you prefer a more controversial (and perhaps clearer?) statement: I don't believe physics have meaning either. That is, I don't believe when for example an atheist would say "physics is the best explanation of the world we have". I think such a statement only has meaning inside a certain, I don't know what the exact term would be, let's call it "mechanistic" self-referential circle. And the axioms that bound that self-referential circle are taken/accepted on belief. You can then argue backwards, yeah but so and so proves that these axioms might be correct. But your entire reasoning, what is valid as evidence, how evidence is obtained etc. is already "contaminated" by the axioms you chose on BELIEF. By this I mean that "meaning" (in my text, meant something as an interpretation or ideology or whatever you wanna call it, I suppose a little different than a Wittgensteinian conception of the term) is a category of belief. I believe you can also then extrapolate the DECISION to assume axioms that bound the self-reference circle to free will. Free will resides in the decision to assume axioms that have to be taken necessarily by belief (those that bound the circle. Of course this is only a visual aid, for example I could think of a statement that in my world circles don't exist, or that I don't choose any axioms, but that itself would be an axiomatic circle again in a sense). So I am not necessarily thinking about free will in a strictly causal-chain formulation, but anyways that's a different discussion.

[Anonymous No.13128515]

>>13128482
Yes. Saying math or physics are "the best" explanation is like saying a microscope on 40x is "the best way" to look at the world, that eyes are "obsolete." But I also think that you would be wrong to expect an absolute axiom, not that anything you say necessarily implies that you do believe in or in looking for such a thing.

So, for you, "free will" is the ability to choose to believe something?

[Anonymous No.13128526]

GH Hardy's mathematician's Apology is amazing. Have you read it OP?

[Anonymous No.13128549]

>>13127562
congrats anon you were baited

[Anonymous No.13128619]

>>13128549

[Anonymous No.13128631]

>>13127818
I'm currently working my way through Spivak, and I'm enjoying myself. Disclaimer: I am the type of person who needs/enjoys a proofs-based approach.

>>13126885
I'm teaching myself math because I want to improve/strengthen my mind and the way I think. My primary interest is neuroscience, and I believe becoming more skilled at math will make me a better scientist.

[Anonymous No.13128635]

>>13127863

I agree with you, but what is with your argument? You are saying that physics is a subset of math, therefore the phrase "physics is just math" is false? I dont think that follows, friendo

[Anonymous No.13128649]

>>13128631
There's a /sci/ discord that are going to work on Spivak starting on the 20th as a study group, if you're interested

https://discord.gg/THs4t6P

[Anonymous No.13128685]

>>13126885
I just got my undergrad in physics. Do you have any suggestions of subjects or specific books in pure math to self-study? I never had to take anything beyond differential equations.

[Anonymous No.13128696]

>>13128482
Radically...even evidence being relevant/explanatory I believe is inherently taken on belief. We *know* that evidence is relevant in scientific method, in finding out facts about how our world works, but I think a lot of people tend to generalize that to all there is. Extending a notion that sits positioned in a certain framework beyond its limits. Now, I don't doubt that it is possible to construct meaning by applying a certain conception to everything and deriving answers to fundamental questions (including all the usual curveballs, like claiming there are no fundamental questions etc.) from it. But when you generalize that far, when the interpretation cannot verify itself outside its own starting conditions that assume certain things to be true, you have to admit you're taking things on a certain degree of faith. To me it is completely logical that for example in Christian theology faith is absolutely necessary. Because when you arrive at the biggest self-referential circle possible (I Am that I Am....I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End) you are by definition moving into the category of faith by necessity, because there can be "outside". It is that which has no "outside" of the framework. I think in this sense Christianity is consistent. If you extrapolate something like science as having all the answers to meaning you by necessity run into "prohibited" questions which are precisely those that expose the boundaries of axioms taken on faith or you run into such theories that are implicitly require faith because they are by definition untestable under science's own axioms (example: the multiverse as a "scientific" explanation). Such a "mechanistic" circle is inconsistent because a category that is by definition not admitted (faith) necessarily creeps into it when it tries to masquerade as a theory of everything without admitting faith in its axioms. So such a system as a theory of everything is obviously inconsistent/self-refuting.

[Anonymous No.13128705]

>>13127321
Check out Chen's Napkin.
http://web.evanchen.cc/napkin.html

[Anonymous No.13128720]

>>13128116
The better question is what's not used. Here's a nice probability theory example: Say you travel to ...let's say Sidney and you walk through the city for 3 days you spot a few public busses and let's say you know they are numbered (they have a productio number written on their license plate, say) in sequence. You spot seven busses on those three days, and the numbers are, say,
8, 16, 43, 74, 3, 53, 7
Now if someone ask you "how many busses does Sidney have" (say for a bet), there is a single best guess you can make.
That question is called German Tank problem and the allies used the maths to estimate the number of tanks the Nazis had, based on a few signings.
(Mind you, the math behind it is that if all seven numbers were very small, it would imply that it's unlikely that there are many busses, and so on)

If you want other such probabilistic issues, check out the secretary problem, or the friendship paradox and so on.
E.g. the friendship paradox says that the typical friend of the typical guy has more friends than himself. E.g. if you are tasked to choose a random person in your phone book, that person is likely to have more contacts than you (tldr this is be sure those people with more friends are choose the most, because they are in more people's phone books)

Stuff like this...

But you can find examples of use for any field, really

[Anonymous No.13128731]

>>13128696
Should read

>there can be NO outside

[Anonymous No.13128748]

I hold a degree in mathematics so I feel comfortable asserting that the majority of these
>A true mastery of mathematics represents a mastery in logic and the capacity to abstract spatial reasoning, and gives a newfound clarity of thought that philosophy would never be able to provide.
statements are nothing more than pseudointellectual mysticism. Computing the galois group of a field or the properties of a functional does not give you "clarity of thought" or some insight into the universe. Go study QFT if you want that, or the philosophy of maths if you want to jerk off over the validity of the law of excluded middle and axiom of choice or whatever.

[Anonymous No.13128749]

>>13128720
Oh btw. and the friendship paradox implies that it's more effective, say if you have vaccines for 400 people in a 10000 people city, not to randomly vaccinate 400 people, but instead randomly choose 400 people, ask them for a random of their friends each, and vaccinate those. Because if you ask people for their friends, you successively get to the most interactive people.

Another unexpected thing is that you can find pretty fancy abstract algebra in queuing theory, or RAID server setups.

[Anonymous No.13128751]

>>13128685
>>13127694

[Anonymous No.13128760]

>>13126885
>Are you actively learning pure mathematics? Why, or why not?
yes i do. Because it is the best art there is. The raw logic and creativity applied in mathematics is pretty arousing to me actually. it educates the mind like no other discipline. Mathematicians do what philosophers dream about: They are rigorous. Everything is well defined and it is always clear what is meant by the terms used. No misunderstandings possible.

[Anonymous No.13128763]

>>13128153
It's a skim thread at best.

[Anonymous No.13128768]

>>13128748
>he computes things

[Anonymous No.13128773]

>>13126885
Are you fucking serious mods?

[Anonymous No.13128783]

>>13126938
>Anything Kant has said or done on mathematics or related things are irrelevant and outdated, for the formalism and philosophy of mathematics that we have today is completely different to anything that existed at his time, something that no one could have predicted.
also the smartest guys in mathematics >>> anything kant can do, sorry.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » mxvabIoSIE No.13128788]

math is so unnecessarily complicated. what the fuck do all those meme symbols mean? it's like a alien language. it shouldn't be this hard. it's not fair.

[Anonymous No.13128790]

>>13128768
Prove Abel–Ruffini without computing the structure of S_5. You're a pseud.

[Anonymous No.13128799]

>>13128748
I think the rise of Curry Howard pretty much justifies the excluded middle debate.
Eventually, we don't want our autonomous cars be written in "informal" languages from the 60's/70's like C++
(And I Say this as someone working with C++ for computer vision)

I don't know what clarity of mind means for you, but I think knowing what a Turing machines is is an essential part of human life. I mean in the sense that cooking is. You can die without knowing it, but it's sort of odd and you missed out.

[Anonymous No.13128822]

>>13128799
But turing machines are not "mathematics", they're a model of computation which falls under the umbrella of math. There are a handful of philosophically interesting mathematical results, most of which are under the QFT banner and the remainder of which concern logic and computability.

[Anonymous No.13128842]

I wish dude, but I struggle to find time. I'm trying to learn Japanese, keep up with life shit, do work, exercise and have some time for hanging out with my partner and/or do something recreational like play a game or read a book. I've wanted to learn higher maths for years and just can't find the fucking time because there are always a couple of things I want to do slightly more.

[Anonymous No.13128849]

>>13128788
>math is so unnecessarily complicated.
no it isnt
its just as complicated as it needs to be

some of the terms could certainly be improved tho

[Anonymous No.13128863]

>>13128822
I think the distinction between the subject isn't really fundamental but more institutional (math, physics, computer science). Computability becomes metamatematical quickly.
And yes, QFT covers a lot of ground, but do does statistical physics I'd say. Not sure what the point of this point really is. I don't disagree with you

[Anonymous No.13128878]

>>13128790
Just because you decided to go into symbol shuffling doesn't mean math can't provide "clarity of thought". I'm not even arguing for that, really. Just saying you're a tard for trying to disprove the claim by pointing at some specific computation about a mathematical structure and going "durr this gave me no insight OP is wrong". If you're going to do that you might as well sperg out about calculus instead of waving your degree around and doing the same thing in a more esoteric area.

[Anonymous No.13128884]

Ah yes, its you. We have all met you, the guy who when is given a complex philosophical or pure mathematical problem responds with "whats the point" or "why does it matter". You may think that you are making some profound point by stating this, but in actual fact you are saying nothing at all, you are asking un-answerable questions akin to the 14 year old nihilist saying "nothing means anything".

Since you are so utterly vulgar to suggest that anything "has" to have pragmatic application, do realise, that if we are able to abstract a pure a priori proof for an equation, then we are also able to refine existing proofs which we use to extrapolate phenomena, right? You are certainly aware, that without set theory (the modern project of pure mathematics) we would never have gotten the turing machine, or anything near to the level of sophistication which current programming holds? I shouldn't need to "source" this, as its blatant if you have ever read anything written by turing or in fact, if you have ever considered reading anything actually academic and not mechanical at all.

I find it ironic, that you argue that pure mathematics is "intellectual masturbation", some egocentric occupation, yet you are completely fixated on how mathematics can be used for yourself, so much so that you actually think that any kind of mathematics which is formulated for the search of sophistication and higher truth is abhorrent. Enjoy your accounting job, anon. I am sure you will enjoy applying your mathematics for a good 2 years until robots take over your mindless job for you.

[Anonymous No.13128892]

>>13128788
Just like any language, meaning is derived from mathematical symbols through learning their assigned associations. Same as reading sheet music or understanding road signage and markings.

[Anonymous No.13128904]

>>13128783
you are either underage, retarded or both to say something like that.

[Anonymous No.13128925]

>>13128116
everything? what a childish question.

- probability theory is the foundation of data compression, used heavily in machine learning
- calculus is literally everywhere
- fourier analysis is used everywhere
- functional analysis is used for nonlinear system theory

[Anonymous No.13128935]

>>13128904
>you are either underage, retarded or both to say something like that.
id call it well educated

[Anonymous No.13128943]

>>13128935
epic troll bro

[Anonymous No.13128952]

>>13128943
>epic troll bro
philosophers wished they were proper mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.13129083]

>>13128482
>>13128696

This leads us to an apparent conclusion. Any claim to a "Theory of Everything" NEEDS to have faith as one of its founding axioms. If it does not and still claims to be a TOE, it is in a position of inconsistency/self-refutation either by having prohibited questions (that reveal the position either isn't TOE as it claims (a true TOE does not have prohibited questions)) or as a TOE requires, the theory despite following its axioms extrapolates so far out (by necessity in order to satisfy TOE conditions) that faith becomes implicitly obvious in its conjectures even if the position's axioms supposedly don't allow for that, which puts it into internal inconsistency with only two ways forward: Either it has to admit it isn't TOE or continue the TOE path but admit faith.

[Anonymous No.13129084]

>>13126885
I'm a math PhD student working on "pure" math that is nonetheless heavily related to data science and all the buzzword fields of the day, while reading and studying philosophy as a hobby. Feels great.

[Anonymous No.13129111]

>the absolute state of philososhits

[Anonymous No.13129170]

Only God Tier Philosophy-Mathematics double PhDs can claim to be true Renaissance men and polymaths in this age, get out brainlets. Seriously, if you can't understand calculus get off my board.

Philosophy and Mathematics, both being modes of understanding the world through abstraction, are so deeply intertwined as to be absolutely inseparable, as was understood throughout history by the long line of philosopher mathematicians from Plato to Liebniz and so on. If you profess to say you love one but not the other, you only expose yourself as a member of the truest psuedo-intellectuals of our age.

[Anonymous No.13129192]

philosophers mass execution when?

[Anonymous No.13129279]

>>13129170
Moterfucker if you can’t play music don’t talk to me about math you hear
U study Math
I am math
Count it biiiiiiitch

[Anonymous No.13129287]

>>13129170
>Plato and not Parmenides
>Leibnitz and not Spinoza

Gtfo off my board

[Anonymous No.13129295]

>>13128649

Thank you for the invitation, I am too shy for that but I still appreciate it

[Anonymous No.13129309]

>>13129295
Well, you can always post questions on /sci/'s /mg/ or /sqt/, I often answer a lot of questions there and ask a bunch myself

[Anonymous No.13129338]

>>13129287
>implying muh oneness man is a better example of a philosopher-mathematician than the philosopher who wrote "let no one ignorant of geometry enter here" on the entrance of his academy, and wrote a system of metaphysics built from the ground up on the base of the most fundamental mathematics today, foreshadowing the coming metaphysical developments of this millennium
>implying muh autistic ethics system man is a better example of a philosopher-mathematician than the philosopher who literally invented calculus and did it much better than Newton
Gtfo the fuck out off my board

[Anonymous No.13129352]

>>13129338
>get the fuck out the fuck out off my board

kek autist poster
Please stay <3

[Anonymous No.13129363]

>>13126885
i do some math because of my degree but nothing too fancy, and im honest enough to admit that im good enough to make a career out of it. i really admire the beauty behind math and those who can not only exceed in it but devote themselves to it. in my eyes like most things that are truly patrician its complexity keeps it pure

[Anonymous No.13129367]

>>13129363
*NOT good enough to make

[Anonymous No.13129435]

>>13127177
>>13127193
Completely besides the point. I assume from this that you implicitly agree with my post and only wanted an occasion to shoehorn your opinions on technology in this debate.

[Anonymous No.13129484]

>>13127290
>It's a bullshit field of study with occasional correlates to reality
You just described all of science and philosophy m8.

You also seem so profundly convinced of being right that I doubt anyone could shake you in your boots. Maybe you're just some kind of epistemological nihilist and you don't know it ?

Is there any form of knowledge you consider valuable ? No need to answer me, I won't be here to read your next post, but ask yourself that question, and see if it leads you anywhere.

If it doesn't your problem is not actually mathematics, but refusal to accept knowledge (and limitations thereof) in general.

[Anonymous No.13129813]

>>13129484
thank you

[Anonymous No.13130017]

>>13129170
A friend of mine once said, "a modern day philosopher goes by the title of physicist." Perhaps modern day renaissance men are math/physics PhDs?

[Anonymous No.13130045]

>>13130017
I think most mathematicians can grasp most concepts of modern physics quite easily, so I would stick with the philosopher/mathematician as the true Renaissance man. A good metaphysicians should also be an expert in physics as well though, of course.

[Anonymous No.13130055]

>>13126885
I wish I could find good books to learn math from

[Anonymous No.13130164]

>>13130045
I began my studies of physics because I wanted to learn about the universe and existence. This also entailed learning mathematics. However it became more clear the more I learned of both subjects that there is not an end to the journey and the milestones are not even profound or deep. Learning QFT or string theory feels about the same as playing a video game and making research contributions can border on meaninglessness. So the question is, what can one study which gives profound and meaningful insight into existence? I thought it could be mathematical foundations which would answer the question: what is the act of reasoning? However even here we get into mundane and unmeaningful research. Now I'm looking at the prospect of TCS because perhaps this can elucidate something profound about existence.

[Anonymous No.13130189]

>>13130164
if youre still asking about existence at your age i can tell you that youve already discovered all that you can understand about it
>TCS
that will tell you literally fucking nothing

[Anonymous No.13130204]

>>13129083
You are familiar with Godel's results right? It seems you are mistaking that finite machines can reason about anything, which Godel showed they cannot.

[Anonymous No.13130252]

>>13130189
You are probably correct. What is to be seen has already basically been outlined. Can we understand why we can reason about mathematics and the universe it in the first place? Because these are not at all apparent to me that it should be the case.

[Anonymous No.13130274]

>>13130045
Many of these people slide around "between fields" quite well to begin with, because they engage in similar, systematizing, clarifying forms of thought.

The reality is that the field is not going to create the "Renaissance man," but rather that certain fields attract certain sorts.

[Anonymous No.13130337]

>>13129279
lmao

[Anonymous No.13130374]

>uses sophistry to call mathematics sophistry

lmao this is great

[Anonymous No.13130379]

>>13126885
mathematics is cringe af

[Anonymous No.13130386]

>>13130374
/sci/ uses sophistry argument! It is not very effective.

[Anonymous No.13130447]

>>13126896
Kunen foundations of mathematics

[Anonymous No.13130457]

>>13130252
math is human made, of course we can use it
platonists are stupid, dont listen to them

[Anonymous No.13130471]

>>13130386
lol back to v brsinlet

[Anonymous No.13130490]

>>13130164
Advaita Vedanta

[Anonymous No.13130964]

>>13130204
Where am I claiming that finite machines can reason about anything or how does that relate to the text? I am talking about whether a theory can prove itself without invoking faith in its axioms. That might very well be related to Godel with his theorems but I am not sure about what you're getting at with your part. Finite machines play no real part in my argument.

[Anonymous No.13130973]

>>13130964
I mean it is certainly not the case that Id claim that a finite machine would be able to effectively reason about anything if anything my position upon reading what I wrote should be obviously the opposite.

[Anonymous No.13130979]

>>13130964
Im saying a ToE, something which can prove literally everything, doesnt exist by godel. Just a very good theory, at best. Its possible you have a single point you want to correct with "faith". But the problem runs deeper.

[Anonymous No.13131095]

>>13130979
I didnt claim TOE that can *prove* everything even exists. Rather if you have a complete interpretation of the world, it is necessarily taken on faith precisely because it cannot be proven from its axioms. It ends up being a theological or a personal belief category out of necessity precisely because it is impossible to prove. Where am I in conflict with Godel? Are you saying that Godel proved there is no TOE at all in any way (ie a theological conception is also impossible but I am not sure Godel ever made such claims. And if he did I am certain he was wrong in the application of his work, which would not be very hard to prove) or that TOE cannot prove itself?

[Anonymous No.13131140]

>>13131095
The latter is precisely my point. A TOE cannot prove itself, it requires faith to believe in.

If youre instead saying that Godel said the mere existence of a TOE is an impossibility rather than its proof, let me know and I will debate further.

[Anonymous No.13131161]

>>13131140
Well you determine your opposition before my response. I don't think I can debate further without invoking additional information beside my first comment. Any system which can be shown to not prove one fact is consistent. Maybe your ToE could improve by removing something.

[Anonymous No.13131166]

>>13131140
But I dont even know what this discussion means presuming we are talking about the universe or even just math. It all feels uncertain and ambiguous and thus empty of content

[Anonymous No.13131203]

>>13131161
For it to be consistent it has to be incomplete then as a TOE because a TOE by definition cannot have an uprovable fact unless it precisely says that you have to accept a certain unprovable fact on faith for it to function as TOE. That has been my point all along, that any theory that claims to be TOE has faith implicit in itself.

>>1313116
I dont know. To me it does not feel ambigous beyond what is absolutely necessary to discuss TOE but perhaps we simply do not share similar ways of thinking.

[Anonymous No.13131257]

Go to /sci/ or /g/ u fucking nerd

[Anonymous No.13131282]

>>13131203
To clarify. If a fact exists that TOE cannot explain, then it is not a TOE but some smaller system. So TOE has to be able to have explanatory power for everything. This however cannot be proven. So any TOE has to be accepted with some degree of "blind faith" and is outside of the domain of proof. These are the necessary conditions to even be thinking about TOE, otherwise it is not a TOE we are thinking about.

[Anonymous No.13131324]

>>13127059
You're right but next time just quote Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.13132264]

>>13127905
You'll become hireable

[Anonymous No.13132379]

>>13127735
Well there's a reason mathematics used to be considered one of the liberal arts.

>>13127771
Nobody serious studies maths by reading Euclid nowadays. There are many excellent textbook, online lectures and more general books on the spirit and philosophy of maths that are informed by contemporary mathematics.

>>13127856
Mathematics is aesthetically very pleasing, tremendously helpful in streamlining and even enlarging your ability to reason and to consider rational alternative, it cultivates formal, spatial and quantitative imagination and might even help with general intellectual maturity (for instance by drilling into you how a pretty and seductive idea can be different from an accurate or working idea).

As a side note, I've noticed that my writing clarity (in my native language if not in English) considerably improved after my first year of serious mathematical study.

>Can math help me understand something about reality, the world, ontological, epistemological, even metaphysical topics?

I'd say yes on all account, though on reality less so (and on epistemology more so). The metaphysics are rather muddled as they more or less always are.

Keep in mind that all of the above is conditioned on approaching mathematics with the right mindset and the right method. Maths isn't a collection of recipes, you have to challenge yourself regularly, ask fundamental questions, solve exercises that seem puzzling to you and confront your solutions with the solutions that actually work. Sometimes a proof fails because you forgot to account for one subtle detail. Don't handwave or half-ass it.

Last but not least, maths can be very fun if you engage with it playfully and open-mindedly.

[Anonymous No.13132392]

I fucking love mathematics but too dumb for it

[Anonymous No.13132393]

>>13132379
bruh you gotta start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.13132470]

>>>/sci/10637606
>>>/sci/10651103

[Anonymous No.13132475]

Yes, I need it for my phd, but the troubling thing is that at this age the brain elasticity already so low. Plus I have pretty become "illiterate" to the language.

Still, biggest problem I found with maths is that proofs are never reasoned. Never it is explained why we are do this or that, or what is the ends of all this. All they do is posit theorems, which are just end conclusions, then move things around and say that that was the proof. Never is the process/thinking of how they get to the particular solution is shown. I enjoy applied math, but math math is just so poorly popularized that it's a nightmare

[Anonymous No.13132494]

>>13128116
Take Fourier series for instance. It can be seen as merely a particular kind of infinite sums with its own mathematical properties. But they were introduced to solve the heat equation - to give an explicit description of the behavior of heat conduction in a solid.

It later turned out that those same series are very useful to describe the properties of electric current, assess the stability of automatic systems, understand how electromagnetic signals propagate, and describe the behavior of vortices in a fluid. So whether you want to build a network of relay stations for radio signals or mobile phone, build a modern working computer circuitry, understand why the movement of water in awaterfall (or smoke from a cigarette) is so convoluted, you'll have use for Fourier series.

There are also very useful in signal processing: when a computer record or download a song, a image, a speech, it interprets it as a Fourier series and treat it as such. All transformation made on the recorded signal are encoded as trnasformation on a Fourier series. Which means if you meant to understand what transformation to apply to get a particular result, you need to understand Fourier series.

This is perhaps an extreme example because half the modern world more or less rests on that particular branch of mahematics. But there are many others.

Broadly speaking mathematics is what you want for processing and extracting information. If you got some information from a physical phenomena but can't make sense of it, and want to manipulate it and give a precise account of its most important properties, math is your best bet.

[Anonymous No.13132499]

>>13127362
>>13127419
Lang is a meme.

[Anonymous No.13132559]

>>13130055
There are plenty posted in this thread. Lang or Gelfrand are great for high school algebra amd precalculus and such. Spivak or Apostol are the best for calculus and are more rigorous, Stewart is fine too if you don't care for proofs. After that I highly, HIGHLY recommend Gilbert Strang's MIT OCW lectures for Linear Algebra, free online. His book is also pretty great. Again, here, if you really want something more proof based then probably go with Axler's Linear Algebra Done Right instead. But many people would do Strang first.
To be honest, you don't even need calculus to do linear algebra and the two feel very very different. So if you found yourself hating limits and derivatives in high school, maybe just try the MIT OCW series first.

[Anonymous No.13132602]

>>13128748
Being able to understand what is a Galois group and why it might be interesting requires clarity of thought often lacking in many people, including educated people.

That clarity is not achieved by the rote practice but by the training that is a prerequisite for it. You seriously overestimate the abstract thought ability of the average joe if you believe otherwise. It's not that average people can't teach themselves to think clearly, but that they often don't. Studying mathematics is a way to avoid that particular pitfall.

That said I agree with you on the hyperbolic and slightly mystical character of OP's statement. Note however that you could hardly study QFT without a solid background in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.13132603]

Math is only interesting when you can do something concrete with it

[Anonymous No.13132606]

Platonism is true if you accept that there is no single ideal realm, but a multitude which are mutually incompatible. True in one realm is not true in another.

All of these realms are topoi. A topos is a structure which simultaneously generate a logic of some order and quality and a category which that logic applies to.
All formal languages are generated by some topos.

[Anonymous No.13132617]

>>13132603
To a certain extent, yes. But if you base your life around only doing things that have a practical application then you will never make any advances in any field because all applications are as far removed from immediate reality as can be present within some domain. Study math for its own sake and applications will eventually become apparent.

[Anonymous No.13132631]

>>13126885
Learning mathematics convinced me that theism has merit.

[Anonymous No.13132688]

>>13132603
This is demonstrably false. How many geniuses devote their lives to algebraic geometry? Why would they do so if it were uninteresting?

[Anonymous No.13132693]

/lit/ is scientifically illiterate. There are like 3 people on this board in total who understand mathematics beyond elementary high-school tier computations.

[Anonymous No.13132702]

>>13132631
Mathematical discovery is a wholly spiritual experience. Erdos describes it most accurately as "reading proofs out of The Book", a collection of all the most beautiful and elegant proofs curated by God. I really had no spirituality until learning the analysis I have, it is so perfect in every conceivable way.

[Anonymous No.13132718]

>>13132603
You clearly have never studied math. Learn some math.
>>13132499
Based and truthpilled.
>>13132392
Cringe. Don't say you're too dumb for math unless you've spent at least 3 months 8 hours a day everyday studying maths and haven't progressed. No one is too dumb to learn math, most are just lazy.
>>13130374
Sophists were wise, educated people. Don't be a pl*tonist cuck, learn more about them yourself.
>>13130055
Start with khanacademy.

[Anonymous No.13132731]

>>13132702
>liking analysis
cringe.

[Anonymous No.13132769]

>>13132702
>I really had no spirituality until learning the analysis I have, it is so perfect in every conceivable way.
analysis is just bookkeeping you fucking pissant

[Anonymous No.13132857]

>>13132731
>>13132769
Analysis is the only real kind of math. Nothing can eclipse the simple pleasure of slapping a norm on a vector space, of throwing topology onto an abstract structure and studying its homology. Algebraic garbage is fucking moronic, and is the downfall of mathematics. Truly, algebra is the epitome of this "bookkeeping." Number theory is literally children's play and logic is a fucking meme. Geometry and analysis are the only respectable fields of mathematics, and all other fields (specifically algebra and set theory) are only beautiful up to their contributions to the two pillars of the discipline.
Just look at ergodicity. Look at the many Sobolev inequalities. Look at Gauss Bonnet. All that is worth studying is continuous.

[Anonymous No.13132899]

>>13132393
Classical geometry is faggy. Only things you can prove from sets in your head is real math.

[Anonymous No.13132908]

>>13126885
Doing PhD in theoretical physics
Academia is a fucking joke.

[Anonymous No.13132914]

I don't read Mathematics, because;

a) while it may represents a genuine mastery of logic, it doesn't actually represent or provide you with the fruits of these labours, so you may be able to appear intelligent on an abstract level, but have never actually applied it to anything

b) it is incredibly dull

[Anonymous No.13132975]

>>13132857
you have bad taste and should stop talking

[Anonymous No.13133013]

>>13128884
>he thinks mathematics contain higher truths
Lmao
Mathematics is just another human-made system of categorization and interaction. Nothing in it is necessarily true, and everything in it is unnecessary and unintuitive. There are much better ways to describe reality, using words is probably the best way right now. I haven’t encountered even a single concept that is better explained mathematically than linguistically. As far as I can tell, any mathematics beyond simple arithmetic is less useful than using English, and the only people who continue studying it are sad individuals who are more concerned with abstraction than reality. There is no reason to value those higher level mathematics, and there is no reason to do logic puzzles about things that have no correlation with reality. All intelligent people know that. Studying high level mathematics might make you feel smart, but they literally don’t tell you anything about reality and they can’t answer any questions outside of the bullshit ones mathematicians invent for no reason other than to stroke their own ego.

Basically, mathematicians are the worst pseudointellectuals and sophists, and it’s your moral duty to disrespect them.

[Anonymous No.13133028]

>>13127018
schools fucking suck at teaching math. It’s almot like the goddamned teacher don’t even appreciate it. Goddamn! America is a failure!

[Anonymous No.13133209]

>>13132975
You're a moron and a failure. Your contributions to mathematics will amount to nothing. I bet you probably are studying algebraic or arithmetic geometry because it's cool right now. Just remember who your superiors are.

[Anonymous No.13133213]

>>13132914
>it is incredibly dull
couldnt be further from the truth. it is colorful and romantic.
watch some 3blue1brown videos on youtube to start experiencing the joy of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.13133218]

>>13133013
Language does a piss poor job of describing the behavior of an electron on an atom.
Mathematics describes it with precision and elegance (this is PDEs btw, not arithmetic).