HIghend mathe is all about faith. Axiom pretenses are all based on assumptions and high end matheaticians understand this. The rule sets only work because we assume we are correct and everythign before it is correct, but in reality this is really not proven, nor provable.
This is a topic brought up every year since most school systems all the way upto early college teach mathe as an absolute and not for what it truely is. While telling people is is absolute makes learning addition, subtraction and multiplication easier it actually makes it much harder for many to understand the more complex areas.
Alot of math is based off the theory of Induction... which is totally faith based since it can't be proved one way or the other....
Alot of people dont realize that...
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
HIghend mathe is all about faith. Axiom pretenses are all based on assumptions and high end matheaticians understand this. The rule sets only work because we assume we are correct and everythign before it is correct, but in reality this is really not proven, nor provable. This is a topic brought up every year since most school systems all the way upto early college teach mathe as an absolute and not for what it truely is. While telling people is is absolute makes learning addition, subtraction and multiplication easier it actually makes it much harder for many to understand the more complex areas.
I never thought that a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon would provoke such a good response
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Good post, Nasica. However, I think there are some cases where math could be construed as a religion (though I definitely dont think it is... I think math is its own thing in between language and science, so I hope I dont get personally attacked by presenting this argument).
Some phenomena are described by mathematics before they are observed, or are described by mathematics when they are impossible to be observed. For instance, black holes were calculated as being theoretically possible before they could be observed, and even now I am not sure we can really observe them. Likewise, things such as the origin of the universe were calculated but we cant possibly observe these things. This is theoretical physics, but they use math so it is essentially the same thing.
So in the same way that we cannot observe God, we cannot observe phenomena that mathematics would show exist.
However, (here comes my personal opinion) things such as theoretical physics are extrapolated from knowledge we can observe and from things we have already mathematically proven. For instance, in regards to the origin of the universe, we can mathematically model the current trends in our universe, and assuming that nature is predictable (which it is... we wouldnt be here if it wasnt!), we can calculate how things used to be. Also, some things can be mathematically calculated before they can be observed; for instance we could calculate the shape and size of the Earth before we went into space and could observe the Earth. The divine however cant be observed, in any capacity, and must be taken by faith alone... so in that way, math is most certainly NOT a religion and is closer to science as science is grounded in earthly phenomena not the divine.
I think the comic was more making fun of people who use religion/athiesm solely as a means to get out of things. "I dont believe in evolution... so I'm not gonna bother to learn it!" or "I dont believe in God... so I'm not gonna bother to learn about religion!" I dont think they were actually positing that math is the same thing as religion.
While many of the things that we take in life to be gospel truth are merely abstractions of our own perceptions of reality, this was meant to be completely for comedic value...I hate math, and when I saw this comic I thought to myself "hah, I wish I could do that"
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Yeah, math sucks. I only have one more math class to go and I am done with math for life... I cant wait.
"Oh, but you'll go on out, and it'll have thousands of applications in real life!"
Yep, thats what the teachers would tell me when I asked for real world importance. Fucking liars.
It teaches excellent analytical problem solving skills.
Unlike WIlliam Shakespear
or Ancient Egypt :P
Of all the school sugject (apart from cooking) maths has the most practical of real world applications
as an interesting side note, did you know your subconsious has to perform advanced differential calculus each and every time you catch a ball, or hit a ball ?
I find it amazing that so many people find calculus hard, consiously, yet everyone (nearly) can catch a ball. The human brain is truely a remarkable thing.
I disagree that the kinds of math being taught in schools have the most practical real world applications. I agree that some maths can teach good problem solving skills, unfortunately the way we teach kids math makes it worthless in all application outside of schools and jobs that are almost exclusively devoted to math. I will NEVER use a graphing calculator outside of an Algebra class, and I will NEVER devide fractions with exponents and variables outside of an Algebra class...nor will my learning how to do them bring me some sort of problem solving skill that I couldn't have had otherwise.
I truly believe that English, and writing skills, are the most valuable that a student can learn. The ability to express one's thoughts in a way that everyone can understand, and many can relate to, is a rare trait that is dwindling in American youth. Why? Because we are focusing so much on making our kids into math junkies and forcing them to read Shakespear (you'll never hear me defend shakespear by the way, I think he is incredibly overrated and pedantic in our public schools)
"If you cannot write well then you cannot think well, if you cannot think well, others will do your thinking for you."
-George Orwell
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
First of all, blanket statements like "Maths is a religion are almost always wrong" As someone mention earlier maths is a universal language. Saying maths is a faith is the same as saying English is a faith. We use maths as a tool to describe the physical world in a arbitary way created by man. You could say Discrete logical Maths is a faith as all the rules are entirely arbitary, but maths in general.... definatly not. Think of it this way, we want a way to define a finger. so we call a finger a unit. We hold up a finger then we hold up another finger, then we ask what we have, so to describe those couple of unts, we define 'two', we also learn that we have defined a '+', so now instead of holdin up fingers we can say '1+1=2'. Maths is a way to describe the universe, nothing more. Would a judge let you off a speeding ticket because you dont believe in numbers ? Of course not, as we defined km/h and we defined the speed limit, therefore the concept of proof is moot. Or are you saying that we defined God as well ? Do you swear to Pythagoras to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ? Anyone who beleives 1+1=2 requires any degree of faith to believe in, needs to go back to their first ever maths class and start again, because you missed the entire point of it. Im sure, and boy, i really do hope.... that Draenor posted this topic tongue in cheek, as a English major, he should understand the concept of definitions. I have faith that faith means faith........ IT MAKES NO BLOODY SENSE !!!!
Does infinity exist?
and BOOM just like that you get it..
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
What about when you get the equation of a line (eg. y=2x+1) and the solution set consists of all real numbers (negative infinity to positive infinity)?
In mathematics anything that gives infinitum as an answer is considered incorrect. Infinity is not a number, infinity has nothing to do with maths at all, infinity is a concept. The goal of modern physics and mathematics is to cancel out infinities from all equations that produce them. and BOOM just like that your lost again
Infinity has nothing to do with math?.... Really?
can you please teach me how to integrate then?
Or maybe can you define a vertical asymptote for me please?
I guess that makes no sense to you right?
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
I wish I was better at math so I could chime in more in this thread, but unfortunately math isnt one of my areas of expertise. I just have some questions Nasica (you seem knowledgeable... I'm not like attacking you or anything).
What infinity result is there in the Big Bang theory? I thought part of the Big Bang was that the expansion of the universe has slowed down (i.e. we arent moving as fast as particles were moving in the first few seconds of the formation of the universe). Likewise, where is infinity in black holes? I just thought black holes were there to explain gravitational pulls we cant account for otherwise... or something.
And why do you say the universe is finite? I didnt think we knew that in any direction.
Sorry for being naive. The extent of my knowledge on such matters comes from "A Brief History of Time," which I read maybe two years ago and this is outside my area of expertise like I said earlier... but I think its pretty fascinating and wish I had the mind for it.
I wish I was better at math so I could chime in more in this thread, but unfortunately math isnt one of my areas of expertise. I just have some questions Nasica (you seem knowledgeable... I'm not like attacking you or anything). What infinity result is there in the Big Bang theory? I thought part of the Big Bang was that the expansion of the universe has slowed down (i.e. we arent moving as fast as particles were moving in the first few seconds of the formation of the universe). Likewise, where is infinity in black holes? I just thought black holes were there to explain gravitational pulls we cant account for otherwise... or something. And why do you say the universe is finite? I didnt think we knew that in any direction. Sorry for being naive. The extent of my knowledge on such matters comes from "A Brief History of Time," which I read maybe two years ago and this is outside my area of expertise like I said earlier... but I think its pretty fascinating and wish I had the mind for it.
I would be weary of Nasica's knowledge of math if he believes that infinity has nothing to do with math...
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
This is a texst book example of the concept of cancelling infinity let x = 0.9999...... (a) 100x = 99.9999..... (b) 10x = 9.9999.... subtract equation (b) from (a) 90x = 90 x = 90/90 x = 1 Therefore 0.9999..... = 1
quite possibly the worst example ever... LOL
That has more to do with the limits of accuracy..
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
The difference is, math expresses the ideas of others, while a compitent writer can express themself...see the George Orwell quote.
C'mon Draenor, surely you dont believe these theories created them selves ?
If mathematics was the official language of a fictional country, Einstien, Pythagoras and Newton woud be considered its greatest poets, their works would be considered things of elegant beauty, just like any other languages poet.
Fortunatly scientist dont bother with carrying on with such subjective matters, or we would still be arguing who is the 'greatest poet of maths'
Oh but you do..scientists have different opinions on who is the best scientist of all time, and almost invariably they come up with the same answers...Newton and Einstein.
The fact that Kepler had to create his own laws, or the Newton had to use Kepler's to derive his...only tells me that there is no wiggle room in the field of science...something is either right, or it's wrong...something can either be proven, or it cannot...It's limiting. When you take something like the eloquence of writing and compare it to the stiff rigidity of math and science, the two simply don't compare.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Okay, lemme fire this back at you to see if I got it.
A black hole singularity, like the singularity at the origin of the universe, is infinitely small. For some reason, I always thought it was the size of like... an atom or a subatomic particle or something.
Now, I just have another question. If a black hole was infinitely dense (rather than just incredibly dense), wouldnt it suck everything into it instead of just things that came too close? For instance, wouldnt it suck in the light at the event horizon and then everything beyond it too? Because the gravity would be infinite...
And regarding the new Hawkin radiation; its radiation that the singularity emits which decreases the mass of the singularity... kind of like a battery in a flashlight losing its energy as you leave the light on. Is that right?
Oi... I should probably stop posting this thread or else I'll just look dumb.
Okay, lemme fire this back at you to see if I got it. A black hole singularity, like the singularity at the origin of the universe, is infinitely small. For some reason, I always thought it was the size of like... an atom or a subatomic particle or something. Now, I just have another question. If a black hole was infinitely dense (rather than just incredibly dense), wouldnt it suck everything into it instead of just things that came too close? For instance, wouldnt it suck in the light at the event horizon and then everything beyond it too? Because the gravity would be infinite... And regarding the new Hawkin radiation; its radiation that the singularity emits which decreases the mass of the singularity... kind of like a battery in a flashlight losing its energy as you leave the light on. Is that right? Oi... I should probably stop posting this thread or else I'll just look dumb.
At the singularity... or origin of the black hole.. it is infinitely dense and infinitely small...
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Comments
HIghend mathe is all about faith. Axiom pretenses are all based on assumptions and high end matheaticians understand this. The rule sets only work because we assume we are correct and everythign before it is correct, but in reality this is really not proven, nor provable.
This is a topic brought up every year since most school systems all the way upto early college teach mathe as an absolute and not for what it truely is. While telling people is is absolute makes learning addition, subtraction and multiplication easier it actually makes it much harder for many to understand the more complex areas.
Alot of people dont realize that...
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
~Greatness~
Currently Playing:
Nothing
Damn, I wish I'd have been able to try that, it just might've worked.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Nas, bud, I think you're taking this post Waaaaaaay too seriously. Its a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
Good post, Nasica. However, I think there are some cases where math could be construed as a religion (though I definitely dont think it is... I think math is its own thing in between language and science, so I hope I dont get personally attacked by presenting this argument).
Some phenomena are described by mathematics before they are observed, or are described by mathematics when they are impossible to be observed. For instance, black holes were calculated as being theoretically possible before they could be observed, and even now I am not sure we can really observe them. Likewise, things such as the origin of the universe were calculated but we cant possibly observe these things. This is theoretical physics, but they use math so it is essentially the same thing.
So in the same way that we cannot observe God, we cannot observe phenomena that mathematics would show exist.
However, (here comes my personal opinion) things such as theoretical physics are extrapolated from knowledge we can observe and from things we have already mathematically proven. For instance, in regards to the origin of the universe, we can mathematically model the current trends in our universe, and assuming that nature is predictable (which it is... we wouldnt be here if it wasnt!), we can calculate how things used to be. Also, some things can be mathematically calculated before they can be observed; for instance we could calculate the shape and size of the Earth before we went into space and could observe the Earth. The divine however cant be observed, in any capacity, and must be taken by faith alone... so in that way, math is most certainly NOT a religion and is closer to science as science is grounded in earthly phenomena not the divine.
I think the comic was more making fun of people who use religion/athiesm solely as a means to get out of things. "I dont believe in evolution... so I'm not gonna bother to learn it!" or "I dont believe in God... so I'm not gonna bother to learn about religion!" I dont think they were actually positing that math is the same thing as religion.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
"Oh, but you'll go on out, and it'll have thousands of applications in real life!"
Yep, thats what the teachers would tell me when I asked for real world importance. Fucking liars.
We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment;
We are choosing to be here right now -Tool, Parabola
"Oh, but you'll go on out, and it'll have thousands of applications in real life!"
Yep, thats what the teachers would tell me when I asked for real world importance. Fucking liars.
It teaches excellent analytical problem solving skills.
Unlike WIlliam Shakespear
or Ancient Egypt :P
Of all the school sugject (apart from cooking) maths has the most practical of real world applications
as an interesting side note, did you know your subconsious has to perform advanced differential calculus each and every time you catch a ball, or hit a ball ?
I find it amazing that so many people find calculus hard, consiously, yet everyone (nearly) can catch a ball. The human brain is truely a remarkable thing.
I disagree that the kinds of math being taught in schools have the most practical real world applications. I agree that some maths can teach good problem solving skills, unfortunately the way we teach kids math makes it worthless in all application outside of schools and jobs that are almost exclusively devoted to math. I will NEVER use a graphing calculator outside of an Algebra class, and I will NEVER devide fractions with exponents and variables outside of an Algebra class...nor will my learning how to do them bring me some sort of problem solving skill that I couldn't have had otherwise.
I truly believe that English, and writing skills, are the most valuable that a student can learn. The ability to express one's thoughts in a way that everyone can understand, and many can relate to, is a rare trait that is dwindling in American youth. Why? Because we are focusing so much on making our kids into math junkies and forcing them to read Shakespear (you'll never hear me defend shakespear by the way, I think he is incredibly overrated and pedantic in our public schools)
"If you cannot write well then you cannot think well, if you cannot think well, others will do your thinking for you."
-George Orwell
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
and BOOM just like that you get it..
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
can you please teach me how to integrate then?
Or maybe can you define a vertical asymptote for me please?
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
I wish I was better at math so I could chime in more in this thread, but unfortunately math isnt one of my areas of expertise. I just have some questions Nasica (you seem knowledgeable... I'm not like attacking you or anything).
What infinity result is there in the Big Bang theory? I thought part of the Big Bang was that the expansion of the universe has slowed down (i.e. we arent moving as fast as particles were moving in the first few seconds of the formation of the universe). Likewise, where is infinity in black holes? I just thought black holes were there to explain gravitational pulls we cant account for otherwise... or something.
And why do you say the universe is finite? I didnt think we knew that in any direction.
Sorry for being naive. The extent of my knowledge on such matters comes from "A Brief History of Time," which I read maybe two years ago and this is outside my area of expertise like I said earlier... but I think its pretty fascinating and wish I had the mind for it.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
That has more to do with the limits of accuracy..
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
C'mon Draenor, surely you dont believe these theories created them selves ?
If mathematics was the official language of a fictional country, Einstien, Pythagoras and Newton woud be considered its greatest poets, their works would be considered things of elegant beauty, just like any other languages poet.
Fortunatly scientist dont bother with carrying on with such subjective matters, or we would still be arguing who is the 'greatest poet of maths'
Oh but you do..scientists have different opinions on who is the best scientist of all time, and almost invariably they come up with the same answers...Newton and Einstein.
The fact that Kepler had to create his own laws, or the Newton had to use Kepler's to derive his...only tells me that there is no wiggle room in the field of science...something is either right, or it's wrong...something can either be proven, or it cannot...It's limiting. When you take something like the eloquence of writing and compare it to the stiff rigidity of math and science, the two simply don't compare.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Okay, lemme fire this back at you to see if I got it.
A black hole singularity, like the singularity at the origin of the universe, is infinitely small. For some reason, I always thought it was the size of like... an atom or a subatomic particle or something.
Now, I just have another question. If a black hole was infinitely dense (rather than just incredibly dense), wouldnt it suck everything into it instead of just things that came too close? For instance, wouldnt it suck in the light at the event horizon and then everything beyond it too? Because the gravity would be infinite...
And regarding the new Hawkin radiation; its radiation that the singularity emits which decreases the mass of the singularity... kind of like a battery in a flashlight losing its energy as you leave the light on. Is that right?
Oi... I should probably stop posting this thread or else I'll just look dumb.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>