/lit/ - Literature

>>15789776
I love his memes

The absolute state of mathlets

in a few years an AI will use these instagram tier memes to justify the extinction of the human race

>>15789781
Whose?

>>15789836
Welcome to My Meme Page, guy who made the one In Ops

>>15789776
I'm unironically against maths too. Mathematics is definitely correlated to mental illness. Thinking in numbers is unnatural and causes all kinds of brain disorders.

Books about scientism and the epistemological confusion between a notional model of reality and reality itself?

>>15789776
anyone who knows a number above 10 shouldn't be allowed to vote

>>15789776
Maths peaked when all the calculations were made that allowed humanity to accomplish space travel, and even that shit wasn't complicated enough to need wild 3 dimensional graphs. Most maths is just autists making up meaningless questions that fill up a blackboard for other autists to solve that don't do anything except allow them to perform mental masturbation

>>15790518
"theoretical" "mathematicians" need to be ousted from society

>>15789848
Nice bait.

>>15789901
unironically this

Helo would you like to know about the metaphysical principles of the infinitesimal calculus?

>>15789848
>>15790465
Math is not more about numbers than literature is about letters.

>>15790601
>Sheldrake
Now that's a name I haven't heard since I stopped hanging out with schizos

>>15790640
Sheldrake walks a fine line between wisdom and insanity—his idea of morphic resonance is admittedly pretty cooky—but in the science delusion he makes some very reasonable arguments

>>15790620
Guenon was a brainlet who couldn't into simple logic and thought 0 was not a numbers. There exist actually good philosophers of mathematics though.
>>15790518
>>15790562
Mathematics has been "theoretical" from the start. Euclid wrote his magnum opus without any reference to the real world. Newton's theory of motion (and hence the whole foundation of physics) crucially depended on Euclid's mathematics, he explicitly acknowledged Euclid as one of his biggest influences.
>>15789848
To be "against maths" you have to know at least what math is about. I bet you don't even know elementary arithmetic (at the level of Serre).
>>15789788
Oh we're fine, don't worry.

>>15790632
>>15790668
shut up nerds

>>15790668
>Guenon was a brainlet who couldn't into simple logic and thought 0 was not a numbers
I like guenon, but that will always make me laugh

>>15790668
nice pic

>>15789776
>Euclidean geometry
>Cauchy-Bunyakovskii inequality
>Groups of transformations
>Möbius transformations
>Rank, nullspace, and determinant
>Groups, rings, and fields
>Abel's theorem
>Galois theory
>Dedekind cuts
>Basis and rank
>Lie theory
>Axiomatic set theory
>Zermelo–Fraenkel-choice
>Zorn's lemma
>Cauchy-Hamel basis
>Cantor-Bernstein theorem
>Metric spaces
>Point set topology
>Ostrovsky's theorem
>Newton-Leibniz formula
>δ-ε formalism
>Analysis in R^n
>Conformal mappings
>Hilbert, Banach, and Sobolev spaces
>Smooth manifolds
>Sard's theorem
>Generalized Stokes' theorem
>Contour integrals
>Cauchy's formula
>Riemann's mapping theorem
>Category theory
>Campbell-Hausdorff series
>Algebraic topology
>Cohomology
>Poincaré duality
>Vector bundles
>Gauss-Bonnet theorem
>Differential geometry
>Gaussian curvature of Riemannian manifolds
>Commutative algebra
>Noetherinian rings
>Krull dimension
>Hilbert's Nullstellensatz
>Zariski topology
>Sheaves
>Algebraic geometry
>Grothendieck duality
>Number theory
>Euler's totient function
>Diophantine analysis
>Elliptic curves
>Representation theory
>Cohomology of Lie algebras
>Clifford algebras
>Differential operators
>Laplacian
>Green's operator on Riemannian manifolds
>Calabi-Yau theorem
>Kähler manifold
>Ergodic theory
>Teichmüller spaces
>Etale cohomology
>Complex analytic manifolds
>Multidimensional Cauchy formula
>Lagrange's theorem
>Burnside's lemma
>Kempf-Ness theorem
>Geometry of complex surfaces

>>15790661
I don't remember much about him. Where should I start with his work?

As an aspiring mathematician, let me tell you a couple of reasons why I love maths. Besides the obvious one that maths is just a highly beautiful and elegent subject (at least the good parts of it), one of the reason is the very clear distinction of power levels. While in art it is often subjective who the better artist is in a particular area, in mathematics it can be as clear as a day. The concepts in mathematics are tools, weapons. They are there because they let you do something cool, and they have been developed through centuries worth of honest intellectual effort. An ambitious newbie might spend hundreds of years trying to solve the following seemingly easy equation over the possible integers as pic related and never get anywhere. He might even run a computer program but will still be just as unlucky because the smallest solution is so large to be completely unfeasible by a brute-force approach. The numbers in the solution have at least 75 digits each. The answer can quite readily be found with just a bit of knowledge of algebraic geometry and elliptic curves. Just having this intellectual tool you can blow the newbie out of the water.
There is a real sense of development in mathematics. The field is clearly progressing. A striking historical illustration of this is the fact that there have been many occurences where the same thing has been discovered by complete strangers in parallel (remember Newton vs Leibniz, Lobachevsky-Bolay-Gauss with their noneuclidean geometry etc.). It's as though the intellect of some greater being, greater than all of us, is being developed. More discussion of this point can be found in Shafarevich's article "On Certain Tendencies in the Development of Mathematics". You can also clearly see definite progress in mathematics by noticing just how many problems that were posed hundreds of years ago (perhaps even thousands of years ago) by our ancestors have been definitively solved by now. Many remain still.

>>15790802
>Cauchy-Bunyakovskii
stopped reading

>>15790802
Based.

>>15790518
>calculations were made that allowed humanity to accomplish space travel
yeah, about that...

What is the most complex mathematical concept yet constructed?

t. mathlet who is interested in the evolution and history of math/abstractions

>>15789776
>3*0=0 therefore 0/3=0 therefore 0/0=3
wow, great fucking system you've got there, mathtards, definitely not self-contradictory

>>15790810
Could you provide a link to Shafa's article? I can't find it on libgen

>>15790834
Division by 0 over integers is not defined.

>>15790834
>0/3=0 therefore 0/0=3
Doesn't follow. Division by zero is not defined, you have to define by it yourself if you write /0.

>>15790837
https link dot springer dot com dot sci-hub dot tw/article/10.1007/BF03022980

>assume math is all about platonic logic and geometry uncovering secrets of the cosmos
>learn math
>find out math is APPLY CALCULUS TO IT
>APPLY CALCULUS TO IT
>APPLY CALCULUS TO IT
>GOT A PROBLEM?
>GOT A SHAPE?
>GOT AN OBJECT?
>APPLY CALCULUS TO IT
>APPLY CALCULUS TO IT
>APPLY CALCULUS TO IT
>WHAT'S YOUR SPECIALTY?
>OH I STUDY THE FLUX OF TRANS-DIMENSIONAL MANIFOLDS
>WOW HOW DO YOU DO THAT?
>I APPLY CALCULUS TO IT
>I APPLY CALCULUS TO IT
>I APPLY CALCULUS TO IT
>COOL WHAT'S YOUR JOB?
>I'M A PHYSICIST EXPLORING THE DEEPEST STRUCTURES OF SPACE-TIME AND REALITY ITSELF
>WOW HOW DO YOU DO THAT?
>I APPLY CALCULUS TO IT
>I APPLY CALCULUS TO IT
>I APPLY CALCULUS TO IT
>GIVE ME AN OBJECT
>GIVE ME A SPHERE
>I'LL LOCATE A TANGENT
>AND THEN I'LL SAY "HERE,
>HERE IS SOME CALCULUS FOR YOU, MY FRIEND
>THIS IS SURELY WHAT PLATO AND EUCLID INTEND!"
>ALL MATH IS CALCULUS IF YOU JUST TRY
>SQUARING THE CIRCLE, QUATERNIONS, PI
>WHAT IS THE LOGOS? MATHESIS SUBLIME?
>NEVER MIND THAT, FIND THE SLOPE OF THAT LINE!!!

>>15790802
>sigma additivity
oh.. so that's the power of modern """"mathematics""""

>>15790827
The monster group is pretty complex.
Shimura varieties.

>>15789776
reminder that nobody, not even the spammers nor the detractors, have read or understood this gem

>>15790882
>A*plied math
>Math

>>15790827
Not the "most" complex, but if you are a mathlet then you ll probably find complex numbers interesting

if you believe that 0.999... = 1
then you cannot believe in calculus

>>15790899
I have skimmed through it and posted about it on /lit/. It's complete retardation.

>>15790914
how so?

>>15790912

>>15790827
check out large cardinals...

>>15790930
Based and Cauchypilled.

>>15790923
He doesn't know what 0 is and completely ignores the formalism of calculus which rigorously justifies the limit and other notions.

>>15790857
nice thanks

>>15790930
good point thanks for sharing brother i am now much better informed on the topic

Calculus is black magic and the people who discovered/invented it should have been burned at the stake.

>>15790937
How come Wolfgang Smith, doctor in physics and mathematics at MIT, says that Guénon is completely right about math, while an anonymous poster on 4chan says it's complete retardation? Given that Smith has produceda thorough analysis of Guénon's work and is not biased at all, since he does not agree with his physics at all. Just give me a quick answer so I know you're not braindead and I'll look up your posts about it.

>>15790956
What about calculus is confusing you? It's many things but black magic it's not.

>>15790968
he didn't say it was confusing, he said it was evil

what about "calculus bad" was so confusing to you that you generated the unrelated thought "calculus confusing"

>>15790962
>How come Wolfgang Smith, doctor in physics and mathematics at MIT, says that Guénon is completely right about math,
Where does he say that? Guenon might have been right about some things but plain retarded about others.

>>15790978
Calling anything black magic typically implies you don't understand how it works.

What did Leibniz do first? Writing the monadology or inventing calculus.

>>15790991
Discovery of calculus.
The Monadology was one of his last writings.

>>15790999
>>15790988
>>15790944
>>15790933
>>15790899
>>15790822

>>15790841
>>15790843
"can't divide by zero" is just a rule made up to avoid all the self-contradictions that would result if the operation were allowed, sacrificing completeness for coherence.
By applying basic logic it is obvious that dividing any number other than 0 by 0 results in some sort of infinity; it is so painfully obvious that even a child is able to arrive at this conclusion, provided they're familiar with the basic concepts of division, 0, and infinity.