Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ggamer]

No really, mathematics is simply a model based on our perception, and our perception is imperfect.  Ergo, your model is flawed.  I never claimed to have a better answer, but anyone who's even bothered to look at the model should fully comprehend that it is inherently flawed.

Semantics

[NullForceOmega]

Mathematics as a system itself, everything from 1+1 onwards, is technically flawed due to its own rigidity.  Reality appears to be more flexible than the model allows.

[Frumple]

Pretty sure mathematics stopped having anything to do with perception a long bloody time ago. Applied mathematics, maybe, but the pure stuff? Not so much.

[NullForceOmega]

The model exists to describe what we perceive, so, no still completely valid.

[Vector]

It's flawed in that particular sense only if you think it's supposed to be a model for reality. I think Godel's theorems are a better, and more recent, argument for inherent flaws. Judge a subject by its own standards first.

Seriously, your arguments were first found in Decartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, so yes, they are pretty old.

The model exists to describe what we perceive

But this is false.

[Frumple]

Nnoooo, m'fairly sure it exists to explore the interrelations between a specific set of axioms at this point. That parts of it are used to describe what we perceive is incidental

[ggamer]

I can understand where you're coming from in terms of other things a bit less fundamental (i.e. geometry), but I really fail to see a situation in which 4 will not come after 3, which will come after 2, and so on.

The thing about science is that it's flexible. If someone comes forward with a discovery that geometry is not consistent across reality, we come up with multiple forms of geometry. That's how things work.

fakeedit: haha, now we're getting into philosophy, which I don't think is covered under mathematics.

There was even this phase in philosphy where bored old white men basically said that nothing can possibly be real except for our own egos (ego meaning sense of self), precisely because we can question whether or not we as people exist.

[NullForceOmega]

You are quite welcome to your views, but I don't really care about theoretical math, as it is pure manipulation of the model to no purpose.

[Bauglir]

is technically flawed due to its own rigidity

What does this even mean.

But more importantly, if the model is flawed because it relies on imperfect perceptions how can you possibly be using the appearance of reality as evidence against that very model?

But even more importantly, what purpose do you think poetry has?

[Putnam]

You are quite welcome to your views, but I don't really care about theoretical math, as it is pure manipulation of the model to no purpose.

Yes, Alan Turing did nothing for the world and the computer you're writing on has nothing to do with this silly pure math. My passwords are hashed using nothing but pure physics grit and my games generate numbers using magic.

[ggamer]

alright braj, i'll level with you. I'm a foreign affairs major, not math philosophy like apparently everyone else on bay12. So excuse me when I ask what the hell theoretical math has to do with the fact that 2 comes after 1. Last time I checked in, we were a bit beyond the theory stage on that one.

[Bauglir]

alright braj, i'll level with you. I'm a foreign affairs major, not math philosophy like apparently everyone else on bay12. So excuse me when I ask what the hell theoretical math has to do with the fact that 2 comes after 1. Last time I checked in, we were a bit beyond the theory stage on that one.

That's actually surprisingly difficult to prove, but I'm struggling to find a relevant proof (it doesn't help that literally all I can recall is "this is out of my depth by an obnoxious margin").

EDIT: Maybe Past Bauglir was just stupid, or thinking of something else. Turns out it's either axiomatic or within one step of axiomatic? Nevermind, I'm just making a fool of myself at this point.

EDIT: Seeing below, the symbology is very complicated indeed. I can't read that, and withdraw even further from this aspect of the conversation.

[Putnam]

Obnoxious indeed, heh.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/278974/prove-that-11-2

[Spehss _]

You are quite welcome to your views, but I don't really care about theoretical math, as it is pure manipulation of the model to no purpose.

Yes, Alan Turing did nothing for the world and the computer you're writing on has nothing to do with this silly pure math. My passwords are hashed using nothing but pure physics grit and my games generate numbers using magic.

Dayuuum, Putnam, I wish I could achieve such levels of sassy sarcastic snark.

[Frumple]

Pretty sure it comes from spending time on things like reddit and the twitch chats. Probably not worth the cost