[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 321 KB, 1200x1193, debunked.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17301458 No.17301458 [Reply] [Original]

Can /lit/ recommend some books on the sociology of mathematics that explains why mathematicians keep clinging to superstitious, baseless beliefs?

>> No.17302815

Beliefs like what?

>> No.17302833
File: 237 KB, 1800x1140, evolutionroom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17302833

>>17301458
fucking burger poster

Just reject LEM and accept a plurality of theories on top of that

>> No.17302881

Yeh, it's in the section next to the bibles and flat earth books

>> No.17303744
File: 31 KB, 490x736, gug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17303744

>>17301458
Gravity's Rainbow

>> No.17303890

>>17302815
Like 1 isn't prime by the means of pure convention.
Then any fucking prime generator that appears generates 1, and they are like
>"It generates fucking 239240238490 primes and that odd number 1, which conveniently always appears along primes. Well, I guess it's just a coincidence, since accepting it as a prime would fuck some precious theorems, although we could just do the same convention shit and say that it is about all primes, except one, which makes such and such theorems work!".

>> No.17303980
File: 27 KB, 323x499, 41zoAuYY1PL._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17303980

>>17301458
I know you made this thread as bait, but there is an ACTUAL book that fits your criterion: https://1lib.us/s/lost%20in%20math

>> No.17304028

>>17301458
Suicide Methods for Dummies

>> No.17304073

>>17302815
Stupid shit like "real numbers." OP debunked them.

>> No.17304207
File: 39 KB, 640x400, 01b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17304207

>>17304073

>> No.17304237

>>17303890
There are many results that become awkward if you include 1 as a prime. How about as a compromise we call it the trivial prime, then we can speak of the non-trivial primes analogously to how we speak of the non-trivial groups or non-trivial rings.

>> No.17304273

>>17304237
I like how you think, anon. You're sincere and actually want to talk about things, without disrespect, even porposing reasonable solutions.
I give you my respect.

>> No.17304331

>>17303890
All math is pure convention, what exactly do you think it is?

>> No.17304360

>>17304331
With no fucking real substract upon which symbols can relate, such symbols could not interfere in reality.
So no, Math can't be pure convention. Otherwise, it would be just a language of symbols which refer to themselves, with no relation to any reality, in any dimension, whatsoever.

>> No.17304372
File: 51 KB, 938x896, 7cjbtdvzn1iz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17304372

>>17304360
that is what math is, you just try to assume as little as possible

>> No.17304381

>>17304372
Yeah, sure.
Fuck you, nominalist shit.
Then create your "own" mathematics in which 1 = 2 and try to build a fucking bridge with it.

>> No.17304384

>>17303890
well, ok, you can call 1 prime but then virtually every proposition about primes has to be phrased as "for all primes except 1". that's why it's not called prime

>> No.17304394

>>17304381
You mean like when they invented sqrt(-1) and built bridges with that? Platonists are mentally ill.

>> No.17304398
File: 48 KB, 500x667, 7a391c835f46903c08ca616c60559c35.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17304398

>>17304381
don't worry, a part of learning to be good at math involves stumbling around not knowing what the fuck you're doing

>> No.17304409

>>17304394
It is useful in programming, so you should be fucking grateful for mentally-ill platonist, dumbfuck.

>I can't understand abstractions can be real, so it must be a convention!

>> No.17304411

>>17304394
It's only a mathematical formalism. Complex numbers are useful for anything where oscillatory phenomena are useful. But a complex number alone does not represent anything physical, or is the value of some physical measurement.

>> No.17304421

>>17301458
Keep your schizo bullshit on /sci/ faggot

>> No.17304425

>>17304409
>>17304411
Pathetic backpeddling, the fact of the matter is that all of math is chosen abstractions used to solve the problem you're facing and nothing more. There is no absolute grounding for any of it.

>> No.17304433
File: 523 KB, 640x640, 7u2ghzkz7p3z.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17304433

>>17304425
FFT is what makes computer media work

>> No.17304439

>>17304425
Okay, then prove it wrong building a bridge with 1 = 2. I'll be waiting.

>> No.17304459

>>17304439
I already showed you your place with the example of i, literally a made up formalism with no real counterpart like that other guy said and yet it is extremely applicable in the real world.

Never reply to me again, pl*tonist.

>> No.17304469

>>17304459
>>17304433

>> No.17304480

>>17304469
Your point? Nobody is denying the extreme usefulness of math.

>> No.17304482

>>17304459
You just showed me I'm right, actually.
Now, go show to children how chopping your dick off can result in you having two dicks.

>> No.17304506
File: 912 KB, 1110x1080, 307.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17304506

>>17304480
I can't read

>> No.17305140

>>17302815
Like real numbers. Mathematicians pretend they make sense and yet never provide an actual definition of what they mean by them.

>> No.17305155

Morris Kline, Loss of Certainty
Morris Kline, History of Mathematics

>> No.17305161

>>17304331
>>17303890
Conventions like not including 1 as a prime number are fine. That's not superstition, that's reasonable choice.
What is NOT fine, however, is basic your whole theory on undefined, meaningless concepts and pretending you have provided a foundation for them. We know it's impossible to solve the general halting problem, so why do mathematicians pretend we can do it?

>> No.17305189

>>17305161
>basic
Meant "basing".