/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14483438]

>Ruins math

[Anonymous No.14483453]

>>14483438
more of >completes math

[Anonymous No.14484084]

>>14483438
Not really. Math graduate student here, and most mathematicians couldn't give less of a shit about these foundational results.

[Anonymous No.14484092]

reminder that mathematicians are never to be trusted if believed, or believed if they are trusted.

[Anonymous No.14484094]

>>14484084
Most modern "mathematicians" are gook mechanical turk calculator zombies playing with self-referential logic puzzles based on systematically ambiguous axioms.

[Anonymous No.14484096]

>bro axioms don't real bro
reminder that math could not exist without philosophy and vice versa... lit and sci comprise the dialectic

[Anonymous No.14484145]

>>14484084
Frege and Gödel ENDED math. If you dismiss this, you are naive at best, or a fool at worst. It doesn't matter what "most" mathematicians think. Mathematics and science was never about consensus. I love how some people try to cope "finance and real world applications of math are better developed." Lmao give me a break. Daily reminder that if you haven't read Frege and Gödel you'll never understand what's wrong with modern mathetmatics. True math is fondness of learning as the word etymologically means in Greek and this learning is only preserved in Gödel's incompleteness theorems metaphysics which are timeless whereas your stupid stock market, your spread sheets, and the people behind these perversions are just fake inventions ought to be be dismissed for the garbage they are.

[Anonymous No.14484173]

>>14484092
Based. Ban math.

[Anonymous No.14484199]

>>14484094
based
>>14484145
ENLIGHTENED AND BASED

reminder that contemporary abstract """mathematics""" is just autistic posturing and mere sophistry

actual Mathematics with a capital M consists of
>arithmetic
>Euclidean geometry studied extensively and exhaustively, today's """mathematicians""" wouldn't be able to solve a basic geometry problem
>basic number theory (none of the """analytical""" bullshit)
>basic algebra and analytic geometry including elements of linear algebra
>basic analysis without the delta-epsilon crap and instead defined using fluxions
>elementary combinatorics and probability theory
everything that's not included in this list is sophistry and is therefore redundant. if you want to learn mathematics don't read Lang, Bishop, Spivak or Tao - read Plato's dialogues, complete works of Aristotle, complete works of Archimedes, Elements of Euclid with extensive excercises, Diophantus' Arithmetica, complete works of al-Khwarizmi, Viete's Opera Mathematica, Descartes' Geometry, complete works of Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Barrow and Isaac Newton, complete works of Euler and Gauss' Disquisitiones Arithmeticae

[Anonymous No.14484481]

>>14484145
Spoken like a true npc.

[Anonymous No.14484498]

>>14484199
>nooooooooooo stop making math hard you autists it should be easy like it was in middle school >:(

[Anonymous No.14484571]

>>14484498
you've completely missed the point, brainlet. a common complaint about contemporary economics is that it's mathematical rigour is really superfluous and doesn't really contribute to a positive development of it as a science - a claim which I second and support. it's the same with mathematics. bullshit "math" like cathegory theory, topology and abstract algebra are literally useless and yet research on these topics is funded by federal governments all over the world. Newton reached the summit of mathematical development with his calculus and polynomial algebra, there were some developments afterwards like Gauss' work on number theory and calculus of variations which ought to be canonical too. 19th century is where the slippery slope starts - with Cantor, set theory, """foundations""", topology etc. which culminated in Bourbaki's ouvre which is pure mental masturbation, useless for actual calculation and useless even as a training of your thinking faculties (it's hard to top Euclidean geometry and number theory in this regard, these are the best lubricants for our brain cogs - why do you think the medieval pons asinorum was a geometrical theorem?). some prominent mathematicians like Arnold have held similar views, sadly little followed
>it should be easy
Euclidean geometry is anything but easy, advanced proofs and excercises require creativity, lateral thinking and a good deal of mental power. I bet my ass that a Fields medalist today wouldn't be able to solve some of Archimedes' geometrical challenges despite the fact that Archimedes lived 2000 years ago and his image is literally engraved on a fucking Fields medal

[Anonymous No.14484612]

Math is for bugmen

[Anonymous No.14484617]

>tfw calculus ruined math by introducing all this 0.9999... = 1 nonsense
>tfw true euclidean and projective geometry, based in true intuition of platonic mathematical unities, has been lost so that autistic retards can engineer a more ergonomic chastity device for themselves

[Anonymous No.14484619]

>>14484571
>contemporary economics is that it's mathematical rigour
joke of a science that cant predict shit, smoke and mirrors behind the power plays. only usefull aspect is game theory (that states that shit tends to get more and more fucked over time)

[Anonymous No.14484634]

>>14484617
based
>>14484619
reread my post >>14484571
that is EXACTLY what I've asserted - the mathematical rigour of economics is undeniable but it hasn't gotten it anywhere forward and in many ways there is smaller area of agreement between economists compared to times of - say - Ricardo. that's because mathematization of econ is just autistic masturbation and similar thing is happening right now in mathematics

[Anonymous No.14484637]

Anyone else absolutely enamored with mathematician authors? Mathematicians have by far the best writing style, the best prose. Gödel, TK, Lewis Caroll, Guénon, Wolfgang Smith.... All are a delight to read.

[Anonymous No.14484644]

>>14484637
>he didn't mention Taleb

[Anonymous No.14484652]

>>14484617
>tfw calculus ruined math by introducing all this 0.9999... = 1 nonsense
even worse, is the claim that a line is made up of points(?!??) , then these autistic retards have the balls to come up with sigma addivity as some kind of explanation?! Baffling. How can one be so dumb is beyond my grasp.

Guénon explained it very well
>la seule raison d’être de ce genre de théories est dans une attitude commune à presque tous les philosophes modernes, et d’ailleurs issue du dualisme cartésien, attitude qui consiste à opposer artificiellement le connaître à l’être, ce qui est la négation de toute métaphysique vraie. Cette philosophie [Kant] en arrive ainsi à vouloir substituer la « théorie de la connaissance » à la connaissance elle-même, et c’est là, de sa part, un véritable aveu d’impuissance
Sigma additivity is un véritable aveu d’impuissance

[Anonymous No.14484675]

>>14484617
>tfw true euclidean and projective geometry, based in true intuition of platonic mathematical unities, has been lost so that autistic retards can engineer a more ergonomic chastity device for themselves
At least you admit the efficacy of modern mathematics. A bit weird that the medium you choose to express this opinion on isn't pen/paper, or flint on rock, but a machine expressly designed with, and actively always using, FFTs (the maths you condemn). Also funny that your philosophy is totally incongruent with the philosophers you praise.

[Anonymous No.14484691]

>>14484675
NOOOOO YOU CANNOT CRITICIZE MATHEMATICS WHILE USING SOMETHING THAT MATHEMATICS HELPED CREATE THAT'S HYPOCRISY NOOOOO ALSO HOW COME YOU ARE A SOCIALIST IF YOU GO TO THE SHOP NOOOOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT!

[Anonymous No.14484696]

>>14484634
i know, just added my 2 cents of economics hate

[Anonymous No.14484701]

>>14484675
>le critiquing the medium instead of the argument meme

[Anonymous No.14484712]

>>14484617
0.999... = x
9.999... = 10x
9 = 9x
x=1

Sorry, I don't see what is wrong here.

[Anonymous No.14484716]

>ITT pseuds shitting on modern maths using economics as a strawman, totally blind to the fact that they are quite literally reading this comment of mine; looking straight at a product of fourier analysis and MOSFETs (which themselves are optimized and analyzed using complex calculus)
I get you guys want to shit over modern maths because you can't cope with knowing that there's a whole aspect of the modern world which will always be entirely foreign to you... but please, this is not at all congruent with the spirit and principles of the classical era

[Anonymous No.14484718]

>>14484696
>a finite world
who says we're not leaving this world?

[Anonymous No.14484720]

>>14484712
mixing countable infinite with uncountable one

[Anonymous No.14484736]

>>14483438
Only for brainlets who can't solve self-referential paradoxes.
>This sentence is false
Which sentence is false?
>The one above
Isn't that what it says?

[Anonymous No.14484743]

>>14484716
enjoy your anal surveilance, profiling and AI deciding your future(all based in parts on fourier analysis and optimized and analyzed using complex calculus), Donatello

[Anonymous No.14484749]

>>14483438

[Anonymous No.14484751]

>>14484199
I can't believe you people try to shame anonymously from your basement.

[Anonymous No.14484785]

>>14484571
>a common complaint about contemporary economics is that it's mathematical rigour

What?! The problem with economics is that its models are not rigorous enough and have demonstrably low prediction power. If you think conjectures with zero math are any better, you're delusional.

[Anonymous No.14484795]

>>14483438
>>14484145
>Not realizing that Godel's result proves mathematical platonism true

[Anonymous No.14484803]

>>14484571
>bullshit "math" like cathegory theory, topology and abstract algebra
Literally low IQ

[Anonymous No.14484815]

>>14484712
There is nothing wrong here these IQlets are just coping

[Anonymous No.14484821]

>>14484743
So your argument is "it's bad" not "it's wrong"

[Anonymous No.14484860]

>>14484785
“When a discipline is in crisis, attempts are made to change or supplement its theses within the terms of its basic framework – a procedure one might call ‘Ptolemization’”.

[Anonymous No.14484877]

>>14484612
Based

[Anonymous No.14484885]

>>14484199
>>14484571
Relativity and computer graphics both use non-euclidean geometry just as an example.

[Anonymous No.14484927]

>>14484712
>0.999... = x
>9.999... = 10x
Where is the ending 0? Multiplying anything by 10 ends in 0. This is where the trick fails: multiplying an actual number by a non-number

[Anonymous No.14484935]

>>14484885
Just because a calculus of some kind uses mathematically non-existent entities in internally coherent ways, that ultimately allow for the real world to be manipulated in regular ways, doesn't mean that the non-existent entities somehow gain some kind of ideal or ontological status. They are artefacts, not features, of a system that works in spite of them.

The problem is that mathematics should reflect the ideal structure of the world, not be an arbitrary assemblage of language games that ultimately "translate out to" something merely isomorphic with the ideal structure of the world (through practical applications).

[Anonymous No.14484963]

>>14484927
>Multiplying anything by 10 ends in 0
No it doesn't, it just pushes the digits over by 1 place in base 10

[Anonymous No.14484969]

>>14484935
>Just because a calculus of some kind uses mathematically non-existent entities in internally coherent ways, that ultimately allow for the real world to be manipulated in regular ways, doesn't mean that the non-existent entities somehow gain some kind of ideal or ontological status.
Yes, it does.
>The problem is that mathematics should reflect the ideal structure of the world
That is exactly what modern mathematics does. You are the one who wants to hold it back because of your low IQ

[Anonymous No.14484972]

>>14484571
>bullshit "math" like cathegory theory, topology and abstract algebra are literally useless
okay retard, enjoy living in a cave because basically everything engineered today completely depends on the last two things you mentioned

[Anonymous No.14484998]

>>14484963
How can you move infinite digits? Now there are more than there were before?

[Anonymous No.14485012]

>>14484749
Ted based lad

[Anonymous No.14485013]

>>14484998
What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.14485018]

>>14484927
>Multiplying anything by 10 ends in 0

2.5*10=25

[Anonymous No.14485021]

>>14485013
If multiplying by 10 shifts the digits by 1, then 0.999... becomes 9.999..., but the trick can only hold up if the 0.999... on both terms has the same amount of 9’s. But if we shifted the original to the left, then logically it would be altered, and not the same, such as by having a 0 at the end, which is what always happens when you multiply by 10.

[Anonymous No.14485024]

Being a brainlet, I have a feeling nobody here knows a shit about mathematics...
>>14484084
Would you care to enlighten us?

[Anonymous No.14485029]

>>14485018
25.0

[Anonymous No.14485030]

>>14485018
ok it doesn’t work for decimals, but it does alter the right side, so the trick fails for 0.999... * 10

[Anonymous No.14485037]

>>14484935
Read Holes and Other Superficialities

[Anonymous No.14485045]

>>14484785
>its models are not rigorous enough
They are. They're not mathematically wrong or anything like that. The problem usually stems from trying to adapt the concepts to mathematical objects so they can be formulated through some function (like for example, capital in the cobb douglas production function). Anyway, you're right about saying that zero math is any better. You need to formulate things in mathematical terms to quantify them and test them empirically. It's just that the math usually used is wrong, probably.

[Anonymous No.14485053]

>>14485021
You are not making sense and you are not using "logic" (whatever you think that means)

[Anonymous No.14485057]

>>14485018
the 5 is just replaced with a 0

[Anonymous No.14485067]

>it's another 1 = 0.999... thread
>except now it's on /lit/ and not /sci/
Dear god. Hyperreal numbers are a thing. You don't have to hate on all of modern math just because you dislike the rejection of 0.999... = 1. Some mathematicians follow that 0.999... + an infinitesimal = 1 but for any pratical applications of modern math it's not going to matter

[Anonymous No.14485069]

>>14485067
NUMBER NOT SAME

[Anonymous No.14485074]

>>14485067
It fundamentally comes down to people who HAVE to see the existence as being a bunch of little building blocks stacked on top of each other in finite and discrete ways.
In reality, the universe and existence and yes, MATH, is gloopy and continuous and stretchy, it's not this little lego-like world that finitists/some form of constructivists so desperately ideologically desire.

[Anonymous No.14485080]

>>14484199
You forgot The Metaphysical Principles of the Infinitesimal Calculus by our memest dear.

[Anonymous No.14485081]

>>14485074
Reality and existence don't have infinitesimals

[Anonymous No.14485086]

>>14485081
Reality and existence are fundamentally continuous and stochastic. Reality and existence does have infinitesimals.

List of elementary, settled facts:
> Nature is inherently continuous. Discrete theories or theories based on cellular automata-like or pixel-like concepts are blatant pseudoscience.
> Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic. Deterministic theories are demonstrably false. Probabilities is all that we can predict, and this is not just due to our lack of knowledge or precision, but it is fundamental.
> Nature is inherently local. No faster than light transfer of information or any other effects is possible.
> Nature is inherently non-realist. We cannot speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed. An observer (not to be conflated with conscious beings) is a basic requirement in quantum mechanics. Thinking this is in any way "Magic" or "mysticism" is admission to ignorance and pseudo-intellectualism
> "Interpretations of quantum mechanics" are overwhelmingly pseudoscience. But as much as some of them can be said to be correct, it is Copenhagen or it's upgrade, Consistent (Decoherent) Histories.
> String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity, and also other forces, otherwise known as the Theory of Everything.
> Cosmic Inflation is likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang.

Some of these statements may seem controversial to laymen or even some subpar physicists. They are not controversial among actually competent researchers at all.

Any philosophy that is in contrast to the above truths is immediately wrong.

[Anonymous No.14485089]

>>14485067
is that the TempleOS guy??

[Anonymous No.14485097]

>>14484617
>0.999.... = 1
> DAT MEAN A = NOT A
Do u just perceive new concepts/books as mirrors of your own thought?

[Anonymous No.14485122]

>>14485097
If you can only travel 9/10 of the distance from wall A to wall B at a time, then no amount of steps will get you to wall B, since you will always be short by 1/10 of the previous distance. Each step is the same as the last but with a different scale. The gap is always there

[Anonymous No.14485127]

>>14484821
Yes, my argument is that math/science is misused either by bullshit researches wasting paper for grants, selling you student loans or this >>14484743 or w/e, where nerds do all the dirty work with their "i fucking love science" shirts on masturbating over their knowledge of fourier analysis

[Anonymous No.14485133]

>/lit/ trying to talk about math

[Anonymous No.14485135]

>>14485086
Wrong. Infinitesimals of any metric are incapable of holding any meaning due to the fundamental properties that are imbued into the fabric of reality. Read Planck.

[Anonymous No.14485139]

>>14485133
Sir, please refrain from flash photography. You'll startle the neoplatonic chimps.

[Anonymous No.14485141]

>>14485135
Planck's work in no way indicates a discrete universe. This is the calling card of the ignorant ("Plancks constant means the universe is discretized!")
Actually study mathematics and physics.

[Anonymous No.14485142]

>>14485089
yes

[Anonymous No.14485145]

>>14485139
sorry sir

[Anonymous No.14485152]

>>14485045
They are "wrong" in the same sense that Newtonian physics is "wrong". Models don't need to accurately portray the fundamental truth of the world and human relations, they just needs to be useful and have decent enough prediction power.

[Anonymous No.14485156]

>>14485086
okay then explain why the universe can’t be discrete if you understand it so well

[Anonymous No.14485157]

>>14485086
> Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic.
Assuming Bayesian interpretation of probability as representing confidence\state of knowledge about something actually means we have no clue right?

[Anonymous No.14485158]

>>14485141
1.) Discrete does not mean what you think it means.
2.) If a system of thought does not preserve meaning, it is because it has left the domain of reality. All metrics have a meaningful minimum. Plancks work showed there was a limit to the amount of interpolation the universe was capable of operating in.

We can talk all day about exotic domains outside of reality, but such discussions have no bearing on describing reality, naturally.

[Anonymous No.14485160]

>>14485080
>Principe du calcul infinitésimal
Which actually explains the confusion of >>14484927

[Anonymous No.14485166]

>>14485133
Who would you expect to hold a semblance of discussion regarding mathematics other than /lit/? The lab technicians over at /sci/?

[Anonymous No.14485174]

>>14485166
Yes, though ideally nowhere on 4chan.

/lit/ is not the literature board so much as it's a board for shitposting about vaguely literary topics, like slapfights between resident zoroastrians, gnostics, atheists and christians.

[Anonymous No.14485177]

>>14485158
You have no idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.14485181]

(1) 0.333... = 1/3
(2) 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 0.333... + 0.333.. + 0.333.. = 0.999..
(3) 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1
From (2) and (3), 0.999.. = 1

[Anonymous No.14485185]

>>14485157
No, it means that the way the manifolds of quanta behave are literally fundamentally stochastic, they do not behave deterministically and they do not have an "secret underlying determinism that we just don't know yet", they are actually stochastically causal.
They do not have a deterministic reaction for every action performed on them/by them.

[Anonymous No.14485187]

>>14485177
Pathetic. Don't ever try to step to me again.

[Anonymous No.14485193]

>>14485187
I'll say it again: You have no idea what you're talking about, pseudo intellectual

[Anonymous No.14485195]

>>14485181
>1) 0.333... = 1/3
wrong

[Anonymous No.14485205]

>>14485195
lol ok

[Anonymous No.14485206]

>>14485185
Here's a more /lit/ topic for you to chew on:

Are probabilistic values deterministic? Does the state of determinism lay in the system or in the knowledge of the system?

[Anonymous No.14485207]

>>14485185
My proposition was that "we are not meant to" fully know or predict the universe so to say.

[Anonymous No.14485223]

>>14485207
Define "we"

[Anonymous No.14485234]

>>14485089
You have to go back

[Anonymous No.14485253]

>>14484652
I had a dream I was reading Guenon. Found him while looking for jewish literature in an occult store. His books were next to Plato's dialogues. Owner of the store was an occult jew but wouldnt tell me where the occult jew books were. Really weird dream.

[Anonymous No.14485304]

>>14485253
Sounds accurate.
>occult jew
Aka hasidic dweeb

[Anonymous No.14485337]

>>14485086
>> Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic. Deterministic theories are demonstrably false. Probabilities is all that we can predict, and this is not just due to our lack of knowledge or precision, but it is fundamental.
How can this even be proven? What do you say of causality if it is true, since the concepts seem to be in conflict.

[Anonymous No.14485422]

>>14485086
>Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic
Based retard

[Anonymous No.14485453]

>>14485133
I knew this attitude was coming. Engineer's INTP though process is so limited.

[Anonymous No.14485469]

>>14484998
>Now there are more than there were before?
Yeah that's what multiplying by 10 does. Also there are higher orders of infinity.

[Anonymous No.14485482]

>>14485127
Well you didn't make that clear in the slightest

[Anonymous No.14485508]

Complete layman here, was pretty competent with maths in school but was never taught to appreciate it on any more fundamental level.Where should someone like myself start in order to begin to comprehend what people are talking about in this thread

[Anonymous No.14485744]

>>14485508
99% of the people here have no idea what they are talking about either.
some of the topics you'd need to study:

modern logic (proofs, axioms, set theory, Frege as mentioned)
philosophy of mathematics (Hilbert's program, Gödel, Wittgenstein)
single-variable differential calculus
real analysis
intro to macroeconomics (Mankiw)

takes two full years.

[Anonymous No.14485893]

The anon that said that when we do 0.999... = 1 we are doing A = not A fails to understand mathematics, 0.999... is just a different way of writting 1, they both represent the same concept. Numbers don't correspond to Ideas, they are tools.

If I tell you you have to fill 1/3 of that bottle, you would never be able to fill exactly 1/3, only an approximation of that. If I said 0.33333..., the practical result would be the same.

[Anonymous No.14485912]

>>14484094
t. studied up to calculus 1 and has watched some pop math videos

[Anonymous No.14485913]

>>14485893
>the practical result
ok anglo

[Anonymous No.14485917]

>>14485152
To my understanding the macro models that we have right know don't have any meaningful predictive power. If anything they have been harmful more than useful.

[Anonymous No.14485945]

>>14485744
Mankew the meme?

[Anonymous No.14485965]

>>14485744
>intro to macroeconomics (Mankiw)
cringe

[Anonymous No.14486002]

*blocks ur path*

[Anonymous No.14486004]

>>14485945
>>14485965
if you want to run your mouth saying modern economics is evil or whatever, at least learn it first.

[Anonymous No.14486019]

>>14485024
Not him but my understanding is that Frege and Godel rarely show up at all in the day to day work of a mathematician. Godel's perceived importance in the eyes of the general public is out of proportion to his actual importance in serious math work.

[Anonymous No.14486028]

>>14486019
it's kind of a shame, most professors barely know Frege, propositional calculus, natural deduction, any of that stuff, even if they used it a lot.
Most mathematicians don't know or care about philosophy of math.

[Anonymous No.14486073]

>>14485337
Causality and determinism aren't the same thing.

[Anonymous No.14486086]

>>14485206
Determinism and causality aren't the same thing.
>Does the state of determinism lay in the system or in the knowledge of the system?
It lays in the system, which is non-deterministic.

[Anonymous No.14486090]

>>14486028
>Most mathematicians don't know or care about philosophy of math.
because philosophy of math is not math.

[Anonymous No.14486099]

>>14485453
who's INTJ

[Anonymous No.14486106]

>>14486028
In my experience as someone who actually studies math, yes we do

[Anonymous No.14486121]

>>14485508
>Where should someone like myself start in order to begin to comprehend what people are talking about in this thread
I'm not joking, put your head in the trash can. Nobody in this thread has any idea what they are talking about. That's not an exaggeration either. If you want a more holistic understanding of mathematics though, Morris Kline makes good books. He adds historical context and builds upon ideas as they came about naturally, which helps aid intuition (which is why his books are subtitled "intuitive approach").

[Anonymous No.14486192]

>>14486073
I mean that things being random doesn't seem to have any real explanation, as all things we know of are caused by other things in a specific way. What could ever explain a truly free/random event that is not strictly determined by whatever caused it?

[Anonymous No.14486235]

>>14486121
Oh shit. I've actually already acquired a copy of Mathematics for the Non-Mathematician so I guess I'll just make my way through that. Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.14486329]

>>14485912
>numberphile
*ftfy

[Anonymous No.14486647]

>>14484481
>NOOOOOOOOO there can't be any activities more meaningful than TRADING STOCKS, (shits cash, gonna be mega RICH somedayy)