/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9380358]

Is mathematics just philosophy without sophistry?

[Anonymous No.9380381]

>>9380358
>counting
>counting in different and complicated ways

Yeah, this has nothing to do with actual, critical thinking. "Numbers" themselves aren't even real. Either all is infinite or all things are one.

[Anonymous No.9380387]

>>9380381
>Defense of philisophy
>It's pure sophistry
OP was right. Cue Eady as they say in math

[Anonymous No.9380392]

>>9380381
so..... THIS... IS.... the....... power........ of....... philosophy............
woahhhhhhhhhhh.......

[Anonymous No.9380402]

>>9380381
>"Numbers" themselves aren't even real.
This is your brain on philosophy

[Anonymous No.9380403]

>>9380387
Calculators were invented decades ago. What's the point of math anymore? It's just intellectual masturbation. On the other hand, philosophy is a broad and still vigorous field, exploring some of the deepest thoughts humanity could imagine. They haven't invented a philosophy-calculator that can just solve philosophical problems easily. It takes human innovation and a complicated discerning of truth, not just following steps to a formula.

[Anonymous No.9380405]

>>9380358
Mathematics is the language of quantity.

[Anonymous No.9380406]

>>9380387
>>9380392
>>9380402

Riddle me this, is mathematics a discovery or an invention?

[Anonymous No.9380417]

>>9380403
Have you ever done mathematics past calculus?

[Anonymous No.9380421]

>>9380417
Uh, yes. I can even do triple integrals, fag

[Anonymous No.9380422]

>>9380402
You've never seen a number just floating around, have you? You've seen a quantity of something, and that quantity is entirely subjective to your perception of it. This quantity can be infinitesimally divided into quarks and other subatomic particles that float in and out of existence constantly. To say that anything is ONE or TWO, is nonsense. Things are in a constant flux of being and it takes philosophy to understand this.

[Anonymous No.9380425]

>>9380417
What, the whole mathematical field dedicated to triangles?

[Anonymous No.9380431]

>>9380406
You invent mathematical objects and you discover their properties.

[Anonymous No.9380444]

>>9380431

Surely we discover mathematical objects and invent their properties.

Or rather, we impose our invented properties on mathematical objects.

[Anonymous No.9380448]

>>9380358
Pretty much, OP. Mathematics and philosophy are both entirely based on logic

[Anonymous No.9380449]

>>9380422
>You've seen a quantity of something, and that quantity is entirely subjective to your perception of it
Quantity is one thing that isn't subjective, you retard. You can see a singe stone. You can also see two stones, side by side. No matter your opinions and perceptions of the object (disregarding madmen), you will realize the number of stones are, by definition, two; that is, twice as many as a single stone. Even if you were to divide them into their very minimal constituents, the amount of those atoms is an objective, as well.

[Anonymous No.9380451]

>>9380406
Invention with potential to morph into discovery. There are many mathematical models that often find striking correlation with reality. For example, hyperbolic geometry was suggested as pure model long before Einstein's special relativity put euclidean geometry into question.

[Anonymous No.9380455]

>>9380402
Define 'real'

[Anonymous No.9380458]

>>9380449
I'm not saying there's no such thing as quantity, I'm saying the exact quantity of something is unknowable and the labels used by numbers are purely pragmatic, not real.

[Anonymous No.9380459]

Mathematics is unfalsifiable nonsense.

[Anonymous No.9380464]

>>9380358

God fucking damn it threads like this makes me hate /lit/ with all the power of life I have in me. If /lit/ was a little kid and it said something like this I would whip it with pic related and then rub my dick cheese all over its wounds. Everyone in this thread is so stupid that I am literally pulling my hair out right now. You were supposed to be the chosen ones you fucking walls, you were supposed to be the last bastion of intellectuality in this degenerate world and yet you still only post idiotic shit like this. You know what would have been a better question, one that I would have giggled and clapped at? Whether the Complete Works of Aristotle volume is better for rubbing your dick in than the Complete Works of Plato volume. Instead you post shit like this that is neither funny, nor insightful, nor respectful in any way towards our time and our lives even. Nobody will ever remember your shitty thread you fucking bottle dweller. It's as if you gave us a glimpse into death itself. FUCK.

[Anonymous No.9380465]

>>9380444
Not exactly.
You pick the definition, or the axioms and then you find out what you get from that.
As in :
"Hey, guys, I have an idea! Let's consider some special type of linear operators that are their own adjoint!"
"Oh, I just found out they all had a spectral decomposition!"

[Anonymous No.9380466]

>>9380449
Define a stone
>by definition
Where from is this definition?

[Anonymous No.9380469]

>>9380464
Fuck off loser. Adults are talking.

[Anonymous No.9380475]

The only mathmatis i can do is couculate how manny times i can fold my toilet paper befor this shit forom ends

[Anonymous No.9380480]

>>9380466
I don't need to define the stone, baka, all I need to know is that it's essense is the form of 'one'
I shall leave the polemics on the stones and their stoniness to the sophists

[Anonymous No.9380485]

>>9380464
An imageboard isn't supposed to be the vanguard of intellectualism.

[Anonymous No.9380493]

>every intelligent philosopher in history, from Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, et cetera studied mathematics
>mathematics is the best activity to train your logic, and also the most objectively true activity humans can comprehend
>modern day literature and philosophy majors think they can be intelligent while disregarding real thinking

lmao

[Anonymous No.9380496]

>>9380480
>its essence is the form of 'one'

In an instance, an electron flies off or a quark implodes or whatever, and you don't have the same stone you used to have now, do you? How do you explain this? How is a stone "one" when you can't even measure all the complicated structures and internal atomic mechanisms that make up the stone? Really, you're just guessing how many stones you see, and your guess is based on an imaginary "number" system, and based on your shitty perception, implying empiricism accurately details reality.

[Anonymous No.9380507]

>>9380496
I'm studying physics and I think you're retarded. Stop with this pseudointellectual garbage. I see one stone.

[Anonymous No.9380545]

>>9380464
>It's as if you gave us a glimpse into death itself.
Aw shit

[Anonymous No.9380552]

>>9380507
There's a reason you're STUDYING physics now, isn't there? You still don't know everything. I'll wait until you're finished studying and have a professional degree for you to lecture me on a topic not even highly skilled and nuanced physicians have solved.

[Anonymous No.9380570]

>>9380507
>I just learned what Lagrangian mechanics are today, so let me tell you what you can say about science
Kill yourself, incel

[Anonymous No.9380600]

>>9380459
Only good post in this thread.

[Anonymous No.9380601]

>>9380493
>the most objectively true activity humans can comprehend

According to who?? Your use of the word "objectively" here simplistically assigns objectivity to a practice that can only be proven by itself and by the sentimentality of those who practice it.

[Anonymous No.9380608]

>>9380459
They take it on faith. :) the pythagorean religion lives on in strange ways

[Anonymous No.9380650]

>>9380459
If math is unfalsifiable, then what the fuck is falsifiable then, retard?

[Anonymous No.9380661]

>>9380493
This.

I think mathematics and physics, and philosophy are very complentary.

Taking calculus (i know its pleb tier) and doing philosophy really made me think more critically.

This is teenage anecdote

I was high on weed and i was listening to lacrisoma and contemplating the origin of the universe and i legit discovered leibnizs monadology

[Anonymous No.9380663]

>>9380650
LMAO right that's like saying "the set of true sentences is non falsifiable nonsense"!

[Anonymous No.9380680]

>>9380661
>I legit discovered leibnizs monadology
No, you didn't.

[Anonymous No.9380706]

>>9380552
>physicians
I'm pretty sure medical doctors don't solve anything in the field of physics.

[Anonymous No.9380732]

>>9380706
>autocorrect errors means I'm wrong
>being this autistic and missing the whole point

Autocorrect technology comes from the brilliant minds of mathematicians and computer programmers. Blame them.

[Anonymous No.9380739]

>>9380663
Your perception of truth comes from a purely human framework. You place too much faith in the logic of the biology of the mind.

[Anonymous No.9380747]

>>9380496
Internal structure intricacies do not in any way alter the fact that such structure constitutes a single macroscopical object. Take your retarded sophistry and babby tier scifi musings somewhere else, cretin.

[Anonymous No.9380758]

>>9380732
I'm not the physics undergrad

>Autocorrect technology comes from the brilliant minds of mathematicians
Thanks

[Anonymous No.9380770]

ITT people who can't solve a x2+5x-20=0 equation discussing math

[Anonymous No.9380772]

>>9380381
>math is just counting
Somebody didn't get past algebra huh

[Anonymous No.9380780]

>>9380770
>x2+5x-20=0
x^2+5x-20=0?

[Anonymous No.9380796]

>>9380780
This
Why the fuck 2 didn't work

[Anonymous No.9380807]

>the absolute state of this board

[Anonymous No.9380819]

>>9380770
That's a polynomial equation for you big boy

[Anonymous No.9380834]

>>9380770
x = 20/7?

[Anonymous No.9380855]

>>9380834
C'mon boy this is high school mathematics

[Anonymous No.9380861]

>>9380855

he solved it correctly, the original faggot forgot ^ between x and 2 so it's not a second grade polynom.

[Anonymous No.9380872]

>>9380464
STEMtard detected lmao

[Anonymous No.9380874]

I'm pretty sure math is just a language with logical rules.

[Anonymous No.9380889]

>>9380874
Language has logical rules.

[Anonymous No.9380892]

>>9380889
Sure, but language also has semantics, math doesn't.

[Anonymous No.9380935]

>>9380421
>Past Calculus
>Triple integrals
Try some abstract algebra or analysis and see how much a calculator will help you.

[Anonymous No.9380945]

>>9380855
i answered your question fool, maybe you're not as good at math as u think u are, read the dumb shit u wrote again

[Anonymous No.9380990]

>>9380381
you're a fucking idiot, do you just come up with these little thoughts and think to yourself, "yea that sounds right" without the least bit of research

>>9380387
lol cue eady

>>9380403
you might be the biggest pleb on this thread. You accessig this website, be it the internet, the captcha, your shitty undeserved iphone: all these things are dependent on tons of work done by a lot of smart people in fields that would seem so foreign to you that it's easy to brush them off as abstract nonsense (not meant to be a category pun). Look into finite fields, harmonic analysis, and literally any field of research. Math is not formula, it's an investigation of the truths that these formulas are on the surface of

>>9380405
not just

>>9380406
depends on your school of thought, the math itself is consistent and can often be construed to reflect either view point. I've had grad student friends who back and forth

>>9380421
ouch, stfu. there's more in math than "muh tres integrals"

>>9380422
this is what a brainlet looks like

>>9380431
you suggest mathmatical objects and take years finding the correct phrasings so that those properties you want seem natural. THEN you study what goes wrong/what you can't fix, because it's probably indicitave of a greater underlying structure

>>9380448
??????? I forgot seeing the axiom of choice in any non math literatures

>>9380449
right point. Put it this way: when you look at three things your brain doesn't have to count; it becomes a unit of "three." This will work up until about 5, from which point you break down 6 into two groups of 3 or whatever. There's a very perilous sort of connection with numbers and our intuitions of counting. And on the other side you will give numbers properties in order to sort of penetrate better ambient spaces for the numbers to work in.

eg. R is a lot more useful in the calculuses than Q because of the completeness while C arises when you pretty much figure out a way to multiply/divide two dimensional vectors over R

>>9380455
I'll bite and give a few defs:
a dedekind cut (so an above bounded set who's suprenum/zorn union) comes out to that number on the "edge"

or, equivalently, the completion of Q, so a real number is anything you can approximate with rational numbers

>>9380459
well

>>9380464
somewhat reasonable sentiment

>>9380465
eh, some linear alg. Bad example though: spectral decomposition is sort of a perfect case scenario, and the proof sort of makes that (somewhat) obvious if you have the patience (and not being condescending here, the proof of SD is fucking tedious) to get through it

>>9380466
well what is the shape of a stone???

>>9380874
I'm pretty sure you're a mouth breather

>>9380935
lol a calculator has helped me when working out Jordan canonicals/rational decomposition but I'm just being an ass at this point

[Anonymous No.9381000]

>>9380381
>Yeah, this has nothing to do with actual, critical thinking.

t. Libfarts Gag

Sure, we have it easier today to explain mathematical axioms to children but to get to the point was not easy and you demonstrable ignorace on the matter is highly amusing.

[Anonymous No.9381029]

>>9380485
you get that a lot of all the quiet autistic intellectuals attract each other in specific places. I'm not even joking, sure there are a lot of fucktards who troll. But a lot of the people that come here will end up in a high place of society. And in a few decades you'll hear a lot of millionaires, politicians, and scientist mention that they wasted a lot of their time at places like this.

[Anonymous No.9381053]

>>9380358
No. Mathematics is sophistry, philosophy leads to actual wisdom.

[Anonymous No.9381200]

Did everyone in this thread conviently forget that mathematics are responsible for almost all the technological advancements in the last few centuries?

>>9380358
I can see this work OP, but sophistry is also present in mathematics. I can see both fields as tools and as a form of data storage. Both fields solving problems, mostly not interferring with eachother.
But their language and approach are different.

[Anonymous No.9381233]

>>9381200
Utilitarianism isn't a convincing argument outside of Reddit.

[Anonymous No.9381245]

>>9381233
He described pragmatism, not utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.9381254]

>>9380358
Irrational numbers and different types of infinity is pretty sophist

[Anonymous No.9381256]

>>9381245
About technological advancements?

[Anonymous No.9381277]

>>9380406
Both. Mathematics is a series of invented abstractions that explain the natural world.

[Anonymous No.9381293]

>>9381256
Yes.

[Anonymous No.9381305]

>>9381293
Sounds like utilitarianism to me.

[Anonymous No.9381307]

>>9381305
Ok, I think you're confused though.

[Anonymous No.9381324]

(P1) We ought to have ontological commitment to all and only the entities that are indispensable to our best scientific theories.

(P2) Mathematical entities are indispensable to our best scientific theories.

(C) We ought to have ontological commitment to mathematical entities.

[Anonymous No.9381389]

>>9380680
Yes i did.

[Anonymous No.9381456]

>>9380496

Math BTFO

[Anonymous No.9381464]

>>9380448
I dunno about that. Most philosophy is pretty informal.

[Anonymous No.9381558]

>>9381464
If you're only reading continentals, maybe

[Anonymous No.9381600]

no

[Anonymous No.9381634]

>>9380358
no of course it fucking isn't

jesus fuck this board is full of morons

[Anonymous No.9381844]

>>9380422
I'm a philosophy major and you're retarded.

>>9380455
so are you.

[Anonymous No.9381895]

>>9381844
>philosophy major
All it tells me is that you're rich and stupid.
Any major that isn't STEM or economics is a literal waste of time

[Anonymous No.9381912]

>>9380747
>a single macroscopic object

Yeah, according to subjective human perception. A grain of sand isn't a stone because we're too large to consider it a stone. A planet isn't a stone because we're too small to consider it a stone. The "stone" here is nothing more than what society agrees it is. There is no "objectivity" involved in assigning numbers to things. To claim to know how much of a stone there is at any given time is totally irrational.

[Anonymous No.9381923]

>>9380772
What great universal truth does math impart on us?

>muh logic

I think half the time, it's just intentionally trying to sound convoluted just to get more attention paid to it. At it's core, it's about quantity, not the human condition, history, how societies should organize themselves, or anything meaningful.

[Anonymous No.9381935]

>>9381844
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume%27s_principle

Get ready to drop out because you seem immune to critical thinking about reality and completely ignorant of the nominal and irrational theory of numbers.

[Anonymous No.9381973]

>>9380406
Riddle me this, is the wad of toilet paper you use to wipe your ass a discovery or an invention?

[Anonymous No.9381992]

>tfw mathlet
Is there a good book for someone who majored in CS but never studied math beyond calculus? I just want a general overview of mathematics without too much unnecessary autism (yes, I understand that unnecessary autism basically defines math)

[Anonymous No.9382007]

>>9381973
Give me a hint. Does it depend on the kind of poop that came out of your anus?

[Anonymous No.9382012]

>>9381923
that geometry is fun

[Anonymous No.9382013]

>>9380358
No philosophy deals with the human experience, math deals with numbers. I don't see how they are similar.

>>9380403
>>9380421
Wow these posts are sad and childish

Skimmed through the thread, bad thread, couldn't find a good post

[Anonymous No.9382016]

>>9380381
Math isn't only arithmetic.

[Anonymous No.9382017]

>>9380358
mathematics is ecology without the sentimentality

[Anonymous No.9382019]

>>9380403
Prove the riemann hypothesis with your calculator and win 1 million dollars then.

[Anonymous No.9382029]

>>9382019
you can't prove it with a calculator because calculators weren't invented when riemann was alive

[Anonymous No.9382030]

>>9382029
what

[Anonymous No.9382036]

>>9381992
Princeton Companion to Mathematics. The first part gives a good overview of the main "basic" concepts all mathematicians know. The rest of the book is also interesting to flip through but may require more technical knowledge.

[Anonymous No.9382039]

>>9380403
The king of shitposting right here, boys. It's so easy to trigger /lit/.

[Anonymous No.9382054]

>>9382036
Thank you, senpai, it looks interesting. Is there a similar volume that connects math and concepts of physics?

[Anonymous No.9382059]

>>9380601
whom

[Anonymous No.9382060]

>>9382030
Is this anime over 18?

[Anonymous No.9382072]

>>9382039
>be /lit/
>have cool conversations with tasteful and funny shitposts
>newfags flood in
>lol reading is for betas
>lol I sucky my own dick
>haha start with the greeks haha spooks im lit now
>I was just acting retarded lol get tricked

[Anonymous No.9382076]

>>9381029
>And in a few decades you'll hear a lot of millionaires, politicians, and scientist mention that they wasted a lot of their time at places like this.
This has never happened.

[Anonymous No.9382083]

>>9382054
The Road to Reality by Penrose might be what you're looking for. I haven't read it though. Also there's a Princeton Companion to Applied Mathematics but that's more generalized.

[Anonymous No.9382086]

>>9382072
You're fucking naive if you think anything on this website is serious. Remember: all posts are either ironic or meta-ironic.

[Anonymous No.9382193]

>>9382086

[Anonymous No.9382282]

Prove the number two exists.

[Anonymous No.9382337]

>>9382007
No. The act of pooping and quantitative systems are one in the same. The tools we use to deal with them exist equally.

[Anonymous No.9382342]

>>9382282
Prove that you can prove things.

Look ma, I'm doing fee-law-so-phee!

[Anonymous No.9382373]

>>9382342
nice circular language game weakling

[Anonymous No.9382438]

>>9382342
>Prove that you can prove things

Epistemology is actually one of the most important fields of philosophy and you do a disservice in ridiculing the sincere questions people have about the nature of knowledge and our ability to know things. Why don't you just prove the number two exists?

[Anonymous No.9382452]

>>9382342
>being this arrogant
>ad hominem
>so sure of himself he doesn't need to present an actual argument
>elitist prejudice against country folks

This thread made me realize there is no such thing as the number two. All numbers are false. Math is Satan's mind game.

[Anonymous No.9382487]

Numbers exist because we know what they are.

[Anonymous No.9382488]

>>9382487
numbers are a social construct bro, not even trollin bruh

[Anonymous No.9382496]

>>9382488
THEY ARE PART OF THE TRUE REALITY
THEY EXIST GODDAMIT

[Anonymous No.9382506]

>>9382488
Well it is a social construct that built your computer

[Anonymous No.9382520]

>>9382496
illusionary truth

[Anonymous No.9382523]

>>9382506
numbers didn't build my computer, asian children did, fuck off stem fag

[Anonymous No.9382530]

>>9382523
Do you understand how many mathematical functions had to be translated into machine code and ultimately into electric impulses for you to make that post? These social constructs sure are helpful

[Anonymous No.9382533]

>>9382530
it doesn't take that much math to transmit text across a tcp socket, faggot

[Anonymous No.9382540]

>>9382530
>>9382506
>>9382496

"Math gave you things so now you owe it worship!!!"

Religion gave us great foundations for philosophy, have served as a great comfort for people, and have done a lot in the way of charity and civil rights. This doesn't mean the assertions made by religions are necessarily true. You can get something good out of math without math itself being true or real in some objective World of the Forms or whatever you people believe in.

[Anonymous No.9382556]

>>9382540
>worship
Literally nobody suggested this ITT. I merely refuted your idiotic claim that math is somehow just a figment of human intellect

[Anonymous No.9382561]

If math is not a descriptive science then in terms of the physical world calculus does not solve Zeno's paradox. Is anyone here capable of living with that?

[Anonymous No.9382563]

>>9382556
are you actually arguing that math is an objective thing that exists in the world and not just a theoretical framework that can be used to make pretty accurate predictions about the physical world? if so then fuck right off

[Anonymous No.9382574]

>>9382563
>objective thing
Whoa calm down there Hume
Now, using your philosophical superpowers, describe what makes math any less real than, say, colour, or shape? As far as I'm concerned, mathematical structure is a feature of this Universe like any other.

[Anonymous No.9382591]

>>9382574
Color relates to waves of light being perceived by organisms.
Shape describes the relation of things to space and to other things and how they're structured.

Both color and shape describe real things in the real world. The claim that math is objective is absurd because the abstract nature of mathematics makes it impossible as an actual description of the real world. Pragmatically, we can assume quantities exist and base ourselves on that just fine. But looking deeper at the real world, one finds it impossible to pinpoint any "objective" truth math gives, except by way of logic.

[Anonymous No.9382606]

>>9382591
>Color relates to waves of light being perceived by organisms
I wonder, how can said waves differ from each other, it's almost like certain elements of their being must allow them to be quantifiable
>Shape describes the relation of things to space and to other things
I wonder, how can we describe and perceive such relation. If only there was a branch of human knowledge concerned with spaces and relations.
Hmmmmm

Hmmmmmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.9382613]

>Stil; using the word ''objective'' in 2017

[Anonymous No.9382616]

>>9382606
>If only there was a branch of human knowledge concerned with spaces and relations.
it is not space, it is what a few humans call space; try to be rigorous

[Anonymous No.9382618]

>>9381200
>technological advancement
Glorified alchemists. They still haven't figured out how to turn lead into gold and they are poisoning themselves and society.

[Anonymous No.9382637]

>>9382282
no who cares
just imagine it does

[Anonymous No.9382671]

>>9380358
HAHHAHA NICE AXIOMS, NERD

[Anonymous No.9382829]

>>9382618
>They still haven't figured out how to turn lead into gold
Not that it's too relevant, but we can do that nowadays. It's just not very economically effective.

[Anonymous No.9382909]

Mathematics is a Symbol-based construct. You cannot know or speak of Mathematics without Symbol.

[Anonymous No.9382918]

>>9382829
Shit... It's hard to come by a new metaphor these days.

[Anonymous No.9382924]

>>9382909
Same thing with writing and languages, really.

[Anonymous No.9382971]

>>9380493
>objectively true
>the degree to which a pair of (((objective))) material objects would lend themselves to material operations analogous to immaterial mathematical ones that the symbol 2 lends itself to is almost negative
>objectively true

This board is sliding into /mu/-like parroting and idiocy.

[Anonymous No.9383008]

>>9380493
so youre a badiou scholar through and through i take it? or you just like being snarky and looking for excuses not to read philosophy & literary theory

[Anonymous No.9383019]

>>9382671
Gödel pls go

[Anonymous No.9383134]

>>9380392
>>9380387
>>9380772
>>9380990
>>9382016
>>9381000

Knowing not to respond to obvious bait is a good sign that you've been on this website for more than a year.

[Anonymous No.9383155]

>>9382083
The Road to Reality is basically a diet advanced math book, in that you won't learn anything from it unless you already know the material contained therein, but if you do, it won't teach you anything new or interesting.

[Anonymous No.9383241]

>>9382506
>Well it is a social construct that built your computer
How is this an argument?

>dude it made technology bro so it must be real
N o n s e q u i t e r

[Anonymous No.9383250]

>>9380493
>The spectacle creeps into the conversation

[Anonymous No.9383872]

>>9382540
>"Math gave you things so now you owe it worship!!!"
That's not what I meant. Learn to read.
Like I said, numbers exist because we know what they are.

[Anonymous No.9383882]

>>9383134
>sign that you've been on this website for more than a year
Now that's what i call a dealbreaker CV.

[Anonymous No.9384645]

>>9380406
Mathematics was discovered when the language was invented.

[Anonymous No.9384795]

Why are phil. majors so adamant on the argument of "lol numbers don't exist it's just an arbitrary framework" when the same arguments they employ can be used against thought? I don't care whether or not either things are in either dimension of reality, I just think this pointless meditation is wack, yo. There's no useful synthesis coming from this.

3/10 - bad thread.

[Anonymous No.9384955]

>>9380406
>Riddle me this, is mathematics a discovery or an invention?
"Mathematics" has an act/object ambiguity.
Mathematics, the discipline, was invented.
Mathematics, the subject matter of that discipline, is another matter.

What does the subject matter of mathematics include?
At least it includes numbers and shapes.
An example of a shape is a triangle.
A triangle is a relation between points in space.
That relation existed prior to humans.
So triangles were discovered.

But if numbers were invented then the numerical properties of triangles were invented not discovered.
However triangles necessarily have three sides, and that is a numerical property.
So since triangles existed prior to humans, so did numbers.

Another proof:
Proportionality existed prior to humans (e.g. the relation of one thing being double the size of another)
Proportional relations are inherently numerical.
Hence numbers existed prior to humans.

[Anonymous No.9385713]

Mathematics isn't interested in truth, as opposed to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9385740]

>>9385713
Quite the opposite, the major difference between the proofs in math and physics is the degree of rigorousness. A physicist accepts a theory 'as long as it werks', mathematician demands it to be infallible

[Anonymous No.9385750]

>>9384645

According to wikipedia mathematics was invented to aid in accounting, when the first primitive states emerged in Mesopotamia.

I can't remember who they were citing though and if that theory is sound.

[Anonymous No.9385778]

>>9385740
That's asking for internal consistency, which is totally different from truth.

[Anonymous No.9385811]

>>9380358
no

[Anonymous No.9385816]

>>9385778
Let me rephrase that: It is not necessarily the case that internal consistency is truth, though it is possible.

[Anonymous No.9386741]

>>9380459
kek

[Anonymous No.9386779]

/lit/ is full of weak lazy whiny persons who are too lazy to learn math or too unintelligent to see it's effect on their mind/ being unable to have the effect so they get defensive and whiny whenever there is anything decent here, like this thread

this is also reason why /lit/ is so trash, and why most of the threads and posts is absolute abominationidontevenknowanddontwanttoknow-tier

no adults here, only rarely matured persons, real persons

[Anonymous No.9386783]

most people here fear math because their level of faggotry can be calculated and they don't wan't to see theirselves

[Anonymous No.9386784]

>>9386779
i love this comment!! cant agree with u more

[Anonymous No.9386785]

>>9385713
one can reveal the truth even if it has zero intrest for doing so

[Anonymous No.9387097]

>>9386784
upboated!

[Anonymous No.9387151]

ITT: no one except >>9380608 knows that the concept of philosphy and mathematics were created by one guy

[Anonymous No.9387187]

>>9387151
>Pythagoras invented math
I bet you think he came up with pythagorean theorem too

[Anonymous No.9387211]

>>9387187
He created the concept of numbers by seeing the concept of 2 in 2 cows, 2 dogs etc etc. and also the idea of mathematics being entirely abstract (and divine) to be used to discover shit

[Anonymous No.9387270]

>>9386779
>>9386783

Mathematics is THE most baseless and random construct there is. Not even apt for describing dried dung.

Some Jews and Buddhists have more success in claiming that certain sounds we make with our mouths are Noumenal superconductors. The only thing Number conveys is its infinite failure.

[Anonymous No.9387278]

>>9387270
>Mathematics is THE most baseless and random construct there is.

[Anonymous No.9387480]

>>9380358
Yes and no.

[Anonymous No.9387865]

>>9387151
>>9387187
>>9387211
>(((Pythagoras)))

Didn't exist. Just like Jesus.

[Anonymous No.9388387]

>>9380552
>you need a degree to call a rock a rock

ffs, guys

[Anonymous No.9388394]

>>9387270
Yeah it's only apt for designing the internet, landing on the moon, flying planes across countries in four hours, and modeling the systematics of flowering plants. Complete failure.

[Anonymous No.9388406]

When does math start getting fun? Why do I feel like the separation between calculus and the rest of the math curriculum is a waste of time? Is this true, I'm only in Calc 2 right now and it seems like it's kind of detrimental to learn engineering math for 1.5 years and then out of nowhere start "real" math (inb4 no real math in undergrad). Wouldn't it make more sense to be teaching proofs and the logical and analytical parts of math from the start?

[Anonymous No.9388423]

>>9388406
What school are you in? Calc in a math degree consists almost entirely of proofs.

[Anonymous No.9388487]

>>9388423
Not in America it doesn't. I even use Princeton's calc syllabus and hw to study and they do the same things as we do at my state school, just a little more demanding but mostly the same. No proofs at all

[Anonymous No.9388508]

>>9388487
Except epsilon-delta proofs for limits :^)

[Anonymous No.9388510]

>>9388487
Sounds strange. Both in Russia and Germany most math lectures are almost nothing but proofs. Maybe it starts later in the US? Try asking /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9388831]

>>9380406
it's just symbols for logic fuck nugget nigger wank pussy fuck oregano

[Anonymous No.9389089]

>>9380358
>Are arbitrary axioms just the clarification of problematic concepts that arise in language without rhetoric?

what are you even doing kid

[Anonymous No.9389098]

>>9380381
mathlet detected lmao

[Anonymous No.9389125]

>>9380990
I hate when faggots respond to every post.

[Anonymous No.9389206]

>>9380807
I agree with this post.

But is it just me or do a lot of Irish people seem to post on this board? "The absolute state of ..." is an Irish expression I think.

[GOD is in mathematics No.9389239]

And it is everything around us.

[Anonymous No.9390064]

I like to think of philosophy as the logical inquiry of questions while mathematics is the logical inquiry of answers.

Nowadays both fields are quite separated, but we have to take into account that they were considered to be of the same nature for thousands of years, from Pythagoras to Descartes. Their seperation is a relatively modern concept though I believe it is justified since scientific progress has skyrocketed so dramatically that many philosophical principles have been given answers by science. However we haven't gotten to the point where science can explain everything, so there is still a use for philosophy, especially when we talk about concepts that are purely societal or have to do with consciousness.

While both math and philosophy are both logical and rational in nature (such is human nature), the truths and theorems that mathematics demonstrates are infallible given that they are realized in a way that is within the boundaries of previously proven axioms. Philosophy does this as well, however due to it's own nature these truths aren't infallible like in mathematics, hence why when dealing with certain philosophical problems we center ourselves around the actual question rather than the answer, because unlike in math we can't find a universal answer with philosophy, rather each person determines their own answer, while still containing thesd conjectures in the realm of logic and reason.

[Anonymous No.9390088]

>>9389239
>GOD is in mathematics

>mfw someone gets to the same conclusion I do in regards to religion / philosophy

[Anonymous No.9390102]

>>9390064
Axioms aren't "proven."

[Anonymous No.9390139]

>>9390102
Correct, I could have worded that better. I didn't mean it in the sense of "axioms that have been proven mathematically" since axioms are pretty much the equivalent of the most basic ideas in philosophy, rather I meant "axioms that have been previously stated to exist"

[Anonymous No.9390251]

>>9380358

Maybe to the Greeks, but not all Mathematics have the same kind of "logic" just as how not all philosophies have the same kind of logic. There are actually quite a few philosophical traditions that are not based on skeptical rationalism, reductionism, essentialism, or even monism. But that's usually garbage postmodern philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9390331]

>>9382282
How many eyes do you have? Ears? Nostrils? Nipples? Testicles?

Quantity seems to be something we bring to the world to make it intelligible, and thus real.

[Anonymous No.9390332]

>>9380381
The foundation of modern mathematics is not numerical, it's set theoretical.

[Anonymous No.9391244]

>>9388394

There is no causal relation between the appearance of Objects and their Mathematic descriptions.

[Anonymous No.9391324]

>>9388394
>>9391244

Even by its own world model, the Material-Darwinian-Historic one, Mathematics is redundant by default at best. If the qualitative leap between no bows and arrows and their cosmopolitan making and usage was made without Mathematics then no subsequent leaps have ever required it. Mathematic lore being no more important than Astral lore.

[Anonymous No.9391341]

Where would a moderately intelligent individual start if they wanted to understand mathematics beyond the basics?
Asking for a friend.

[Anonymous No.9391355]

>>9390064
>since scientific progress has skyrocketed so dramatically that many philosophical principles have been given answers by science.

Can you name one?

[Anonymous No.9391360]

>>9380358

Yes. Furthermore, philosophy is mathematics without autism.

[Anonymous No.9391484]

>>9391341
axiomatic set theory

[Anonymous No.9391493]

>>9382282

"Two" is that similar quality that a pair of days, people, plants, rocks, turtles, etc. all have. It is an abstract representation of quantity.

Assume by contradiction that no relative quantities exist. Then there is no difference between fifty people and one person. However, we know this to be incorrect, therefore relative quantities exist.

[Anonymous No.9391500]

>>9380381
>Either all is infinite or all things are one
This

[Anonymous No.9391502]

>>9391493
But can you touch number two?
Checkmate, idealists

[Anonymous No.9391630]

>>9384955
>That relation existed prior to humans.
So triangles were discovered.
How?

[Anonymous No.9391644]

>>9391630
They were mining squares at a quarry when Pythagoras accidentally dropped one and it split in half along the diagonal. Thus a triangle was discovered.

[Anonymous No.9391665]

>>9390331
>and thus real
The universe is real, what we use to describe it is just what we use to describe it and has a purely arbitrary relation to the reality, calling an ear an ear is an abitrary act in which we decide to "separate" the ear from the head and choose to use the sound "ear" to describe it, the only things real in that is your experience of this part of the universe and the part of the universe

[Anonymous No.9391670]

Again, according to Mathematics itself, things like triangles are even more abstract than Number is, since the lines required to form angles in any capacity are Ideal concepts and never found in the Phenomenal world.

For the record, I am an Idealist but Mathematical Idealism is as absurd as it is repugnant. Claiming there is another realm of Numerical/Geometric entities opposite/paralell to the one culminating Pleroma is as perverse as claiming the former realm is the only Ideal.

Get behind me.

[Anonymous No.9391674]

>>9391670
>demiurge pic/le gnostic xddd
>is completely retarded
every tiem

[Anonymous No.9391681]

>>9391493
>Assume by contradiction that no relative quantities exist. Then there is no difference between fifty people and one person. However, we know this to be incorrect
>We know this to be incorrect
...
>because we assume relative quantities exist
...

[Anonymous No.9391684]

>>9391674
>no rebuttals

every time

[Anonymous No.9391685]

>>9391644
Kek

I'll assume you're making a joke and not trying to answer my question

[Anonymous No.9391691]

>>9391684
>my idiotic incoherent babble should be taken seriously
People don't respond to mentally ill hobos shouting nonsense on the streets with solid counterarguments. And it's not because there aren't any.

[Anonymous No.9391703]

>>9391691
>the rebuttal my jovial tone is hinting at is SO good that it all but goes without saying
>...s-so don't make me say it
>please

Number and Geometry are fiction by Numeric and Geometric definitions and any Ideal Forms thereof are implicitly rejected by Numeric and Geometric worldviews.

Get behind me.

[Anonymous No.9391704]

>>9381029
>But a lot of the people that come here will end up in a high place of society.

R U ON DRUGS MANG#

A lot of people are real life Travis Bickles. Just one bad day away from shooting up a place.

[Anonymous No.9391705]

>>9391703
>>9391691

[Anonymous No.9391709]

>>9391705
>>9391691

[Anonymous No.9391716]

>>9381029
>But a lot of the people that come here will end up in a high place of society.

R U ON DRUGS MANG#

A lot of people here are real life Travis Bickles. Just one bad day away from shooting up a place.

[Anonymous No.9391723]

>>9391691
>>9391703

The rebuttal must be as substantial as Mathematics itself.

[Anonymous No.9391752]

>>9391674
>>9391691

[Anonymous No.9391756]

>>9391723
>>9391752
>still desperately trying for (You)'s
Fuck off already, autismo. Nobody cares.

[Anonymous No.9391760]

>>9391756
>>9391752

What kind of infinity is the number of ways in which you are wrong?

[Anonymous No.9391776]

>>9380381
Mathematics is literally formal logic you buffoon