/sci/ - Science & Math

I want to have a systemic understanding of something.

>>12445025
Read this first:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/
So that you can understand why there are many pseudo-controversies on this board, because math is still object of philosophical disputes. So sometimes you should do math and sometimes you should step back, ask inconvenient questions and think about the big picture, but acknowledge that there are different times, spaces, moods and people for each thing. If you make this distinction i think you will be fine. Not quite sure, but i thing i'm quoting D'Alembert's by saying this: “Go forward and faith will follow”.

Ok, here i go.
>Definition: nothing is any bladeless knife with missing handle.
>Definition: a symbol is something, instead of nothing. It is only understood by it's using.
>Definition: A sign is also a symbol.
>Let:
>A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z, the main upper case characters of the latin script.
>Let:
>a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y and z, the main lower case characters of the latin script.
>Together, lower and upper case lead to the next definition:
>Definition: the system of both upper and lower case latins scripts is called the Latin alphabet.
>Note: Is unavoidable the circularity when declaring the latin alphablet? The sigs L, D, e, t, f, i, n, t, o found in "Let" and "Definition" were used in beforehand.
>Note: Can any declaration of the natural numbers using signs be circular, because of the notion of sign already presupponing that of number?
>Definition: concatanation of latin scripts is any juxtaposition of signs in the latin alphabet system.
>Note: Isn't the last definition circular as it consists of words?
>Definition: a word is any concatanation of latin scripts.
>Note: definition of single words leads to the dictionary paradox.
How can one be any formal at all? How can one have systemic understanding of anything? I don't know answers to the notes.

Ok, here i go.

>Definition: nothing is any bladeless knife with missing handle.

>Definition: a symbol is something, instead of nothing. It is only understood by it's using.

>Definition: A sign is also a symbol.

>Let:
>A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z, the main upper case characters of the latin script.

>Let:
>a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y and z, the main lower case characters of the latin script.

>Together, lower and upper case lead to the next definition:

>Definition: the system of both upper and lower case latins scripts is called the Latin alphabet.

>Note: Is unavoidable the circularity when declaring the latin alphablet? The sigs L, D, e, t, f, i, n, t, o found in "Let" and "Definition" were used in beforehand.

>Note: Can any declaration of the natural numbers using signs be circular, because of the notion of sign already presupponing that of number?

>Definition: concatanation of latin scripts is any juxtaposition of signs in the latin alphabet system.

>Note: Isn't the last definition circular as it consists of words?

>Definition: a word is any concatanation of latin scripts.

>Note: definition of single words leads to the dictionary paradox.

How can one be any formal at all? How can one have systematic understanding of anything? I don't know answers to the notes.