[ 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: 14 KB, 268x326, Alexander_Grothendieck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3035749 No.3035749[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>implying there is a philosopher that has even half of the brain power that this man does

>> No.3035765

Never heard of him, care to introduce some of his general ideas to us?

>> No.3035786

>>3035765
I think that's Alexandre Grothendieck. He is a mathematician, one of the greatest, probably go down on history books eventually. He isn't any kind of philosopher so I have no idea what's the point with OP.

>> No.3035790

I swear that I've read somewhere that von Neumann failed his philosophy class or something.

>> No.3035798

>>3035786
Was a mathematician. He got sick of the research game due to other people's bullshit.

>> No.3035816

>>3035798
Yeah, was, sorry 'bout that. Apparently finding out military was funding his research was the last drop for him. I have some french book about him but since my french suck I probably never will read it :( Is there any good englis books on him?

>> No.3035849

>>3035749

grothendiek, like most pure mathematicians are basically overhyped chess players---

they play an arbitrary game that has very specific rules, they find implications and properties and so forth, but in the end don't acquire any wisdom, don't learn anything about life, don't learn about themselves, how to live, etc...

they are basically solving chess puzzles and proving their solutions work...who gives a fuck?

their work doesn't become interesting until an applied mathematician or physicist puts it to practical use...

philosophers actually deal with things that matter--law, ethics, consciousness, reality, truth, etc...

>> No.3035854

so what did Grothendeik ever say that was interesting and wise? Serious question OP.

>> No.3036595

>>3035849
>philosophers actually deal with things that matter
I'm gonna use "LMAO" for this part

I find it funny how you imply that somehow mathematics aren't part of everything that led to the industrial revolution and keep building the world on which you live.

Mathematicians can and do achieve philosophical knowledge through their studies... why? because math does involve questioning yourself and everything around you.
You can start reading about cellular automatons, e.g. "conway's game of life", and then fuck your dick with a needle before you dare to shit the same diarrhea that came from the anus you have instead of mouth, dickmilker.

>> No.3036620

>>3035849
questioning the value of a pure mathematics major, sure

but questioning the value of mathematics as a whole and of genuis mathematicians

/lit/ of all places has attracted the anti-intellectual cancer

>when am I going to use this in real life?

>> No.3036632

mfw I've seen his picture posted here multiple times and I always thought it was Michel Foucault

>> No.3036645

>>3035849
Uhhhh, what are Godels incompleteness theorems? What about the fact that various influential philosophers have been mathematicians? Also, an "arbitrary game" with "very specific rules".

How you can spew out such ignorant clichés on a matter you know little to nothing about. If you don't like maths, fine whatever, but that in no way makes maths "useless" or "simple". Math is nothing like chess, educate yourself fool.

>> No.3036646

I thought it was Foucault for a moment. Bald people all look the same, yo.

>> No.3036692

>>3035854
What's more interesting than algebraic geometry?
An acceptable answer would be homological algebra, but that's hardly a counter-argument, is it?

>> No.3036721

>>3036645
>How you can spew out such ignorant clichés on a matter you know little to nothing about.

Exactly!
Grothendieck brought category theory to bear on algebraic geometry, and category theory proper can't even be formulated in ZFC! He stepped outside the "very specific rules" because it allowed him to get shit done.

>> No.3036727

>>3036645
>Also, an "arbitrary game" with "very specific rules".

I lol'd at that, too.

>> No.3036733

>>3036646
>putting "yo" at the end of a sentence ironically.

I'm convinced that this is something only awkward people do.

>> No.3036762

>>3035849
You'd think on a board dedicated to art people would appreciate pure mathematics done solely for the beauty of it. Ironically enough, the argument that the work needs to have 'practical use' is usually the weapon of choice for people who would cut down all art funding and / or bitch about how art is useless thing to study at a university.

>> No.3036784

>Grothendieck

This sounds like it would be German for "big dick".

>> No.3036809

>>3036632
Me too I was going to make an AIDS joke and everything

>> No.3036838

>>3036762
What's the beauty of an artificially constructed language? Am I supposed to find Esperanto beautiful as well?

"High level" math is pretty much a modern version of Pythagorean cult. Its axioms are arbitrary.

>A brave little theory, and actually quite coherent for a system of five or seven dimensions -- if only we lived in one.

>> No.3036864

>>3036838
The fact that this 'artifically constructed language' is not arbitrary but represents concepts and structures in nature that cannot be formulated using words. I can get the same point across in English as well as Esperanto. I can't explain curvature of Riemannian manifolds without using mathematics, yet this concept defines how gravity woks. The fact that it is exactly this structure which occurs in nature does not diminish the beauty of similar structures which may not define reality in so far as we are aware.

>> No.3036875

>>3036864
Actually, most of all, it's not even the language that you're supposed to find beautiful. It's the ideas that are expressed by the language that cannot be expressed in a different language.

>> No.3036877
File: 45 KB, 446x400, 1259326504105.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3036877

>>3036864
>not arbitrary but represents concepts and structures in nature

>> No.3036898
File: 100 KB, 608x524, gordonfreeman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3036898

>>3036864
>concepts and structures in nature that cannot be formulated using words

>> No.3036902

>>3036877
I don't see what's funny about it. Physicists cannot work without math. Physicists describe nature using math. If you have trouble considering a set of mathematical 'rules' as a structure or a concept, then clearly you have never encountered any high level math.

>> No.3036911 [DELETED] 
File: 38 KB, 316x459, animoprhsbook1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3036911

>>3036877

I find it horrifying that anyone can insult the level of intelligent it takes to deal with the concepts and implications of pure math, but honestly believes literature is anything but glorified entertainment for pretentious pricks.

Check it out, if someone was inclined enough, they could make Animorphs part of a new canon for future pretentious morons to worship.

>> No.3036920
File: 74 KB, 438x318, feels bad man.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3036920

>>3036762
>that feel when you want to appreciate maths but never had a good math teacher

>> No.3036927

>>3036902
Typical STEMfag. Enjoy your cult.

>>3036911
Keep venerating your cult leaders' ability to carry remainders in their constructed language. Swallow their cum every day like a good little boy.

>> No.3036932

>>3036692
>>3036645
>>3036620


funny how no one here can defend Grothendeik at all, what did he say that was so wise and profound?

>>3036762
>You'd think on a board dedicated to art people would appreciate pure mathematics done solely for the beauty of it
The OP's challenge is to claim that Groth is over and above philosophers, how so? So a guy can do math proofs, so what? It literally doesn't improve life at all, has no effect on his understanding of reality, the world, people, life, himself, his mind, nothing. NOTHING, except that very specific and trivial sub-field in math.

Ok so he figured out some math properties, AND? Its such a narrow and specific field that it has no bearing on life or anything else, it might have utility in the future, ok neat, and? Like why the fuck should we think of Groth as anything more than a guy who was good at tinkering with math-properties?
I don't see it any better than a guy who is good at SC2, CHESS, SUDOKU, WORD PUZZLES, CHECKERS..>ETC....just a random game with its own set of rules and conventions you have to follow---Yes chess players are clever, and maybe their solutions even have "practical applications" ok so what? Am I supposed to compare Kasparov to Socrates? Give me a fucken break...one dude is clever at a little game, the other guy is profound when it comes to life and reality in general---fuck off

Math is a great tool. But being great at math is not much different than a guy who is great at Chess or Carpentry...in terms of big picture questions, life, nature and reality neither the Chess player nor the Mathematician know wtf is going on, and nothing they do implies they are wise or philosophical

>> No.3036939

>>3036927
No seriously, I'm actually interested in discussion, rather than pointless flames and insults. Hence why I'm trying to explain things from my perspective rather than posting mocking meme pictures or dismissive remarks.

>> No.3036946

>>3036932
>Math is a great tool. But being great at math is not much different than a guy who is great at Chess or Carpentry...in terms of big picture questions, life, nature and reality neither the Chess player nor the Mathematician know wtf is going on, and nothing they do implies they are wise or philosophical

amen to this

>> No.3036954 [DELETED] 

>>3036927

Are you mad because you majored in British literature or something? It's a pretty well-known fact that mathematics takes far more intelligence than philosophy-which makes sense, considering high-level mathematics is just a very rigid, more perfectly logical branch of philosophy.

>>3036932

>it's not practical, so who cares, it's clearly not worth ANYTHING.

On a literature board, of all places. Get back to analyzing the feminist undertones of 19th century romance novels or something, faggot.

>> No.3036956

>>3036932
QED, thread over

math fags can go home

>>3036954
>It's a pretty well-known fact that mathematics takes far more intelligence than philosophy

socrates IQ: 205
godel IQ: 140 + autism

>> No.3036960

>>3036838
>>3036864
>>3036898

Math is a language. A very complex and very _inhuman_ language.

Math is valuable precisely because its inhuman nature makes it possible to describe things and ideas which, in any normal human language, would be too convoluted or strange to even begin to grasp.

Math is beautiful precisely because it is so inhuman. (Also, not surprisingly, being inhuman makes math practically useful in describing the laws of nature.)

>> No.3036965

>>3036960
Little baby girl had to delete her post to defuse her own asspain retroactively.

Why don't you work out a mathematical formula for how mad you are?

>> No.3036967

Math is beautiful in the way a great goal in sports is beautiful, a great checkmate in chess is beautiful, a detective-solving-a-case beautiful, etc...

But it has no philosophic beauty, wisdom or intrigue to it. It is a great field of study and useful, but Mathematicians are about as deep as a 2 foot baby pool.

Physicists come closer to being deep and profound, well they use to back in the 40s-60s, but now all our scientists are 2 dimensional thinkers who are not much different than engineers.

All very useful, all extremely shallow and the questions they formulate equally trivial and boring.

What happened to deep thinkers like Einstein, Schrodinger and Heisenberg? They tackled the philosophical implications of their fields very well. Now all we have are paper-thin academics who are too myopic to write interesting shit.

mathematicians don't even care about reality, or nature or this world or this life...they care about a very particular game with a very specific set of conventions...they are good at their own version of chess, nothing more

>> No.3036968

>>3036932

Wow. Just... Wow.

This has to be a new low for /lit/.

>> No.3036969

>>3036932
I could explain to you what his contributions were in mathematics, but it'd take a couple of years to learn the necessary prerequisite knowledge, so I'd rather not get into that. Suffice it to say he was really really smart and did some stuff no one else though of before.

I will (obviously) not make the claim that Grothendieck is 'over and above' any philosopher (what does that even mean anyway?) but your implication that his, or any for that matter, contribution to math is meaningless seems to miss a great deal of the point. Mathematics is not just a tool. Mathematics is profound in the same way that paintings or sculptures or music can be profound. One looks at it, takes a long time to fully grasp the nuances, then revels in the beauty of it. How can this not be meaningful?

>> No.3036977

>>3036969
>you're not a high enough level Math Chess Cult Member to know.. just trust me......

>> No.3036984

>>3036967
Can you explain to me in what way philosophers (and maybe physicists, as you say) are profound that mathematicians are not? Can you specify more clearly what you mean by profundity?

>> No.3036985

>>3036932

Math is not a tool, math is a language.

(You'd think /lit/, of all places, should understand the difference!)

>> No.3036986

>>3036984
It'd take a couple of years to learn the necessary prerequisite knowledge, so I'd rather not get into that.

>> No.3036989

>>3036967
>>3036932

Jesus Christ, am I being trolled here? Is this guys seriously claiming mathematics is a less meaningful camp of knowledge than philosophy? I know that this differentiation between the two is already dumb, but come on... 8/10, with a bit more of work this can become copypasta material

>> No.3036993

>>3036977
Oh come on, don't be coy now. Is Socrates terrible because a 5 year old can't read it and has to be 'indoctrinated' into the 'readers cult'? Just because it's gibberish to you doesn't mean it's gibberish.

>> No.3036996

>>3036989
Philosophy: Formative attempts at understanding great and real things

Math: Breathtakingly extensive and elaborate exposition from meaningless first principles, the spiritual equivalent of playing Sudoku over and over again for eternity

>> No.3037001

>>3036996

The funny thing is that it's exactly the other way around.

>> No.3037003

>>3037001
But it isn't.

>> No.3037004

>>3036996

Now you got a 9/10! Go and post this on /sci/.

>> No.3037007

>>3036986
Seriously? I ask an open question to explain your viewpoint to me because I'm genuinely interested in your point of view and I get this in return?

If there's anyone who is interested in discussion, let me know, otherwise, I'm not wasting my time anymore with people interested only in one-up-manship.

>> No.3037010

>>3037003

It really, really is. And this is coming from someone who takes biology at the university, so I'm not biased toward any side of this (dumb) discussion. You really should take your head out of your ass for a minute and learn a bit more about both philosophy and math before saying shit like this.

>> No.3037018

>>3037010
>It really, really is.
I just told you that it isn't.

>biology
Enjoy your not-even-a-science. The other scientists think you are their bitch.

>the university
It's "university" or "a university", you foreign piece of shit. Learn English.

>> No.3037024

I love the practicality of math, it's ability to solve real world problems using various techniques.

But I would never call math beautiful or profound. A hammer is a great tool, it can create homes and cities. It is marvelous. But it isn't profound or deep or anything of the sort because to be profound you have to convey fundamental aspects of LIFE, this particular reality, our world, our nature, the human condition, this universe..etc

Math speaks in generalities, doesn't say anything about humanity, this universe, this life, our condition, our beginning or future, how to live, our 'selves', etc..nothing

it gives us nice ways to calculate distances, and areas, and changes in variables, and angles etc...ok great. But profound? Not even once has math been profound.

Logic can be, if it becomes philosophy.
Logic as math, is never profound

>> No.3037032

>>3037024

Math is either computation, or it is following a series of symbolic logical implications.

If it ever becomes beautiful or profound it is because the user has forced those properties artificially on it. Like if a Chess player calls a certain opening or attack "profound"...

What is profound to the mathematician is trivial to the honest person and the logical philosopher.

>> No.3037036

>>3036996

Math: Formative attempts at understanding great and real things, such as the laws which govern our existence and the invisible nuance of the working of reality.

Phiosophy: Breathtakingly extensive and elaborate exposition from meaningless principles, the spiritual equivalent of taking a shit and praising the crap as something more than just crap.

>> No.3037040

I hope this is just a samefag spamming his shitty opinions on the thread, or a couple of underage kids talking trash; it would be really sad if the majority of /lit/ was this dumb.

>> No.3037044

>>3037032

Define profound.

>> No.3037045
File: 93 KB, 1563x318, lolsci.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3037045

relevant

>> No.3037047

>>3037024

>Math doesn't say anything about the universe

10/10, I'm out of here.

>> No.3037049

>>3037040
>get angry at thread
>make 9 separate "I hope this is just a samefag being a fucking retard idiot in this thread. I hate him so much. Fuck. Fucking asshole." posts
>don't see irony

where's your math now?

>> No.3037056

Remember how the entire point of "Being and Event" is that ontology is mathematics and how you can easily extend Godel's insight beyond mathematics to reveal how all knowledge, meaning, etc. is based off synthetic historical axioms.

>> No.3037059

I contemplated studying math at higher levels (I did up to Calc 3, linear algebra 2, proof-based set theory, stochastic processes, stats 2) in college, but I could never answer the question "so what?" after doing a proof or problem...

I mean it feels great solving shit, it feels awesome seeing these weird connections and properties arise as if by magic...but in the end it just feels like I'm playing a game.

I can't connect it to life, nature, or my experience of the world at all. For example, what is the profundity and wisdom of anything in math? Beyond the practical application what is the significance of Langrangian multipliers or Eigenvalues?

Why should I pretend these things are something more than just tools for solving problems? Why should I pretend that Euler's identity is somehow profound and deeply important to life? It isn't.

Math has great applications, but that's about it. You can call it beautiful, just like how a baseball fan will call a homerun beautiful...meh

>> No.3037060

This entire thread consists of 3 posts short of nothing but "no u". If this is all the disciples of either Grothendieck or Socrates are capable of, it's pretty sad.

>> No.3037062

>>3037060
#10

>> No.3037064

>>3037056

people who extend Godel's incompleteness theorem to anything beyond a specific subset of math are idiots.

It doesn't even apply to all math systems anyway, but only very specific subsets of mathetically consistent systems, etc...

People try to apply it to philosophy and psychology lol-- THey are completely retarded, you must agree

>> No.3037072

Seriously, I love /lit/, but this is retarded. No one is going to explain sheaf theory to you on a 4chan forum. Math has incredibly deep philosophical implications all over it. Noether's theorem, the entire work of Turing, wiener, von Neumann, and many others. I think contemporary math is actually finally going beyond some ontological questions people have been circling around since Heidegger. Nothing short of immersing yourself in math will reveal its incredibly deep implications. Try summing up all of Derrida in a post. You can't. Grothendeick was a motherfucking genius.

>> No.3037077
File: 57 KB, 1095x873, 1337298099407.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3037077

>>3037072
> I think contemporary math is actually finally going beyond some ontological questions people have been circling around since Heidegger.

>> No.3037102

>>3037077
Are you even sure what you are laughing at?

>> No.3037116

>>3037072
>try summing up all of Derrida in a post
>"We will never be finished with the reading or rereading of Hegel, and, in a certain way, I do nothing other than attempt to explain myself on this point." - Derrida
; - )
>>3037064
He doesn't just apply it to anything; he prefaces his use of Godel by showing that ontology is essentially set theory, everything is a multiplicity of a multiplicity founded upon a Cantorian void set (this is Hegel's concept of the void, too), thereby rendering the very concept of Being interlinked with mathematics.

>> No.3037133

>>3037102
Course he is -- at neckbeard nerds.

>> No.3037140

>>3037116

I like you. But I hope the Derrida thing was a bit of a joke.

Logics of Worlds was a bit of a letdown comparatively though, wasn't it? I'm not that smart, and I think even I could have taken that a lot further.

>> No.3037144

>>3037116
That's incredible, I totally understand Derrida now. I guess this shit isn't so hard after all, so lemme explain the notion of a sheaf to you then:

A sheaf is a presheaf with the additional demand that the identities on different patches are equivalent where the patches overlap and the requirement that if there's a set of sections on each patch such that the sections are equivalent on patch overlaps, then there is a global section.

Wow, I guess we've all learned a lot today.

>> No.3037155

>>3037144
Go away, Pythagoras.

>> No.3037176

>>3037036
>Math: Formative attempts at understanding great and real things, such as the laws which govern our existence and the invisible nuance of the working of reality.
Abstract things aren't real things.The laws which govern our existence are studied by physics. Maths is a language, just an useful tool for physicists.

>> No.3037189

>>3037176
The "laws" of the res extans which you pore over in order to build a better gas guzzling lawnmower don't govern my existence.

>> No.3037194

>>3037189
>res extans
lol

>> No.3038496

>this

>> No.3038504

>>3036838
>A brave little theory, and actually quite coherent for a system of five or seven dimensions -- if only we lived in one.
Well... Actually...

>> No.3038505

>>3036932
>It literally doesn't improve life at all, has no effect on his understanding of reality, the world, people, life, himself, his mind, nothing.
Uh. I kinda stumbled upon this thread but... Well, okay, /lit/, okay.

>> No.3038516

Human languages are ugly and illogical

>letter
>letter
a word used for two different things, what the fuck?

>> No.3038519

>>3036595
"I'm autistic and like to count things for no reason that's a good thing im changing the world mom look"

>> No.3038520

this thread contains pretty much everything wrong with the new /lit/

>> No.3038522

>>3038520
Don't worry, I'm sure they're all joking.

>> No.3038525

>>3037024
>it gives us nice ways to calculate distances, and areas, and changes in variables, and angles etc

>has never heard of math outside of his highscool education

>> No.3038529

hey, normalfags

life is overrated

>> No.3038584

>>3038525

elaborate, ive done 2 yrs of college level math for my science degree

please tell me the deepness and profundity of math as it applies to life, nature, reality, yourself, your condition, etc...

what is "deep" about math? show me a specific example

>> No.3038587

I want to pursue math, I feel that it might have interesting implications, but I don't see what they could possibly be

I want to attain cosmic knowledge and understand truth/reality

can math help? I don't want to waste time with it if its just a trivial little puzzle game

>> No.3038603

>>3038584
>2 yrs of college level math

>babby calculus

>> No.3038607

>>3038603
jesus christ these faggots can are do engineers bow before them

>> No.3038610
File: 62 KB, 357x432, 1346804258376.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3038610

>>3038584
>do you even proof

>> No.3038632

>>3035749
Well philosophers and mathematicians are very similar. They both are committed to understanding the world, just in different ways. The philosopher asks more general questions, which may not have answers. The mathematician asks specific questions, those that have answers (sometimes). You will often see, if you read through the history of western philosophy, a trend toward the thought and methodology found in mathematics. From Plato to Descartes to Kant to Mill to Husserl to Frege and Kripke, there is a trend of this kind of thought. To quarrel and bicker over who is smarter than who is silly. We are all working towards the same goal, we just have different questions to ask.

>> No.3038859

>>3036932
>>3036967
holy shit. 6/10

>> No.3038863

>>3036595
>mathematics aren't part of everything that led to the industrial revolution and keep building the world on which you live
Industrial revolution? Those fuckers, now I know who ruined everything.

>> No.3038871
File: 3 KB, 126x106, 4KNa1z9Md.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3038871

>>3038584
>science degree

>> No.3039519

>math proofs

what math proof is profound and has deep implications about nature, or life, or reality?

As far as I can tell math proofs just relate logical implications to other logical implications in symbolic form about properties and conditions that are overtly empty of any significant meaning beyond their specific context in math.

Idiots.

>> No.3039545

>>3036967
>Einstein, Schrodinger and Heisenberg
But most of those spent their time doing that sort of science you decry?
Schrödinger only wrote a philosophical polemic to get people to stop them from having really stupid philosophical debates he considered a complete waste of time.

>> No.3039569

>>3039545
>Schrödinger only wrote a philosophical polemic to get people to stop them from having really stupid philosophical debates he considered a complete waste of time.

That wasn't his reason for writing it. He wrote it to further research into the study of origin of life, its relation to thermodynamics, entropy, etc.

>But most of those spent their time doing that sort of science you decry?

I don't decry that kind of science, it is a useful field, similar to carpentry and janitorial work. We NEED it. And I respect people who do it, just like I respect garbage men for doing that kind of dirty work.

What I'm interested in is when garbage men and scientists expand their limited horizons and ask interesting questions--Einstein did it, Schrodinger did it, Heisenberg did it, etc...

What I don't like is when scientists (or anyone) become engineers and basically don't look beyond their little niches and just do their little jobs without looking for any profound implications of their work

I don't expect garbage men to become philosophers. But I expect scientists to at least dip their toes into philosophy like the guys in the 1900s, and 1950s did...

>> No.3039570

maybe not half but mebbe 70%?

>> No.3039575

Serious question. Is his lastname pronounced Rottendick

>> No.3039585

godel's theorem is not extendable per se but it is a particular manifestation of the problem faced by all iterative representational systems.

>> No.3039610

as long as they are doing philosophy or analyzing the philosophic implications of their work, then there is something to math/science

until then its just an abstract potential

>> No.3039617

okay children hush now. How many of you know that Grothendieck is still alive and is somewhere in the mountains of Andorra where he lives in seclusion and writes on deep topics, such as the physics of free will?

And, when the mathematician Leila Schneps corresponded with him, he promised to share with her his researches in Physics if she could all but answer one question.

>"What is a meter?"

It seems he told her that he was disappointed with a "lack of rigor" in physics.

>> No.3039633

>>3039617

so he finally realized what matters and that pure math itself is just a trivial pass-time?

wow only took him 80years? what a doofus

>> No.3039640

>>3039633
>pure math itself is a trivial pastime
>trivial pastime
>trivial

You best be trollin' nigga.

>> No.3039651

>>3039575
I still prefer Immanuel Cunt.