/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15285244
>phi
>value
>number

Lol, Lmao even.

>>15230883
>how many people with mathematics degrees do you know that were influential in the field?
>how many
>"I am a bitch to quantification".

It's funny how you question it with the caveat that (quantity of people with degrees) is a factor.

>And meaningless "progress" slapped up for a paper that have no real value don't qualify you to be one either.
It's the only thing that does matter. What do you actually think "math" is other than a language?

>Only the results do.
>the results being reified made up quantities

>mathematical truth
There is "truth" and then there is "math".

>Your phd is nothing but something you can show to employers to get hired.
You want to participate in the world of materialism...don't you anon? Just show the (QUANTITIES), it's the language of profit and loss after all.

>>15187583
>0 is the quantity of nothing, kek
I can tell this is going to go well since you've already started with a contradiction. "0" represents "no quantity". It's not of number, no matter how many coping expressions you use to still make it not a number.

>They substituted it with nothing
So they took, and left it in privation. That's not a reason.

>nothing seems to be the only thing
You seem to enjoy contradicting yourself a lot. Nothing is "no thing".

>logically exist
That requires reasoning, which doesn't happen when you have "no reason whatsoever. So no, not logical. How do you test "nothing" without "being there" negating it beiing "nothing" in the first place?

>The subject of discussion can definitely be an object
But it doesn't have to be.

>just think about chairs or something.
How do you think about "nothing" without negating the concept?

>Math is applied to vision and perspective all the time to create 3D and VR among other consistent illusions of perspective.
And does poorly when trying to construct one of the most simple triangles. And you think this accurately describes reality when math proves it literally cannot do so? You think trees extrude themselves on the "z axis"? You think nature follows Cartesian coordinates? That would be ridiculous.

>>15173048
>think math is too "perfect" to explain our "imperfect universe."
It perfectly explains our imperfect universe.

>>15089452
It's the language of quantification, intended to be used to translate orders to golem slaves from all backgrounds.

>>15089482
See? No matter where you are or what language or culture or quality you have you can still comprehend and pay interest rates.

>>15089493
>And don’t say anything about non Euclidean geometries. The Pythagorean theorem is about triangles in the Euclidean plane.
That's the joke though.

>>15078302
>particles that don't exist cause a force that can be measured on objects that do exist
Keep crying, quantifier.

>>15078313
How about the original model?

>>15009813
>All numbers are concepts you fucking goof.
And the concept of "number" entails what?
>So what? You could also use the square root of four to prove that 2 = -2.
What's the square root of two?
>How about you asymptote this fat ass? Just define asymptotes as infinity you dummy.
Lets just redefine math as we go along and shit on it and destroy it's original meaning/intention. Sounds great.
>Plenty of functions are discontinuous and we call them numbers, for the instance... the natural fucking numbers???
You call it number but is it "of number"?
>Just modify it to accomadate for one, the the true mother of all numbers.
>He thinks the principle is number

>>15009880
>geometry
>math
Again "square root of two" please.

>>15005786
>why is it specifically 3.14?
It isn't
>I feel like pi should be a concept
What you feel has no relevancy in that it is in fact a concept.

>just keep the fraction going forever and say it has every single combination in it

Yes yes lets just shit on math all day long and contradict the axioms we take for granted. Or just stop it. Stop using it or use it for it's intended purpose like the tool it is.

>>14957775
>The Reimann hypothesis is false due to Euclidean geometry.
I mean, so is the majority of math and physics but you don't see me publishing 2000+ year old discoveries.

>>14957778
>RH is is negated here as well but not starting from Euclid.
Euclid negated himself with his 4th postulate. Embrace hyperbolic geometry and stop whinging and coping.

>>14957807
>>14957786
>You don't believe it to be possible to find some formulaic relation that could produce numbers backwards?
You would have to give me a number to start with. Pi is not a number and it never will be. How do you suppose I should approach it with math when it's not a quantity? Should I just make up a symbol/expression as a placeholder for the number/equation you're looking for? You want to think yourself further into the box you thought yourself into?

>>14957847
>Yes, but the programs decide where those plot points go.
A computer cannot be held responsible, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.

>>14887832
>According to null result
Try harder.
>>14887889
What he does is takes the original meaning/original word that actually refers to something and watches people like you get mad and seethe over it because it doesn't have the word "quantum" in front of it.
>>14888011
>diving into the depth of geometry and physics and engaging an entrenched superiority complex egomaniac who has a financial incentive to oppose sounds like a terrible time
Indeed, because eventually it gets down to the point where geometers get to BTFO of mathematicians with things like pic related.

>>14888041
>Youre not a physicist or mathematician.
We're talking about math and physics here? Are you sure?

>>14888050
>space-time
I don't think we're talking about that either.

>>14888184
Do you equations deal in actual quantities or the coping mechanism you mathematicians refer to as "expressions" which ultimately contradict the axioms you take for granted?

>>14772111
>please write out a number with infinite decimal expansion.

It's contradictory to call it "number" in the first place then, you would be asking to quantify what literally cannot be a "discrete quantity". There's even plenty of examples of ones that don't repeat in the expansion.

>>14772536
>Except maybe zero might work as an answer?
Zero is not a number. There's no quantity.

>>14756092
>Not only that but 4000 years old maths, aztec maths, Chinese maths, Babylonian maths, antiquity maths, etc all are correct and make sense
No

>>14756936
>The proof of existence has been presented in the literature.
literature maybe, but not math itself lol.

>You reject it because mathematical existence is not the same as your subjective metaphysical notion of existence
There is nothing "objective" about using a language to describe the actual "objects" worth deeming "objective". You're saying a description is an actual thing/cause/some kind of reality when it's just a fucking way of describing something else.

>Therefore it's your individual emotional problem.
Quantify this without using an expression.

>>14756984
>Pythagoras was a time traveler

>>14757364
They can't even establish basic principles using math alone.

>>14757447
>Symbols and formal logic are established by the government, not by language. ;^)
Professional retard in the thread. Or are you just a book learned moron ahead of the curve and understand that it's only force and psychosis that makes you "right"?

>>14757461
>>14757468
>>14757482
>Just trust the experts

Yeah and when they seethe hard enough at being unable to explain themselves, then the force comes in.

>>14757512
>Math is just circular logic
It's a language

>>14757931
>no one with a philosophy degree will ever accomplish anything of note, or even utilize what they learned for anything of use.
They'll be the ones prescribing mathematicians with adderall and anti-depressants to deal with their irreconcilable world of bean counting.

>>14717106
>90 degree e and h fields at the speed of light

>>14560843
>make question
It's called "asking a question", and what else did you expect me to do when presented with a "problem" that doesn't have enough info for me to solve? I know that's another question, but this time I'll give you the benefit of knowing that it's a rhetorical one.

>>14549246
>Not an argument, he did not agree with Einstein's realism,
There was no "argument" worth arguing over if it came out of the mouth of that crackpot. He reified two nonexistent places into one descriptions which means fuck all.

>Buddhism can be atheist and is still be spiritual,
Buddhism is a denial of the soul and therefore is bankrupt of any "spiritual" ontology you believe can be derived from it. Atheism is the metaphysical belief system that denies metaphysical belief systems and therefore is a contradiction of a "belief".

>>14549266
>Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, pandeistic, henotheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist
Real Hinduism is monistic, do yourself a favor and don't compare it to modern day new age trash that is Buddhism.

>>14549215
>Ok, and so what is all matter made of?
It's the unreal and temporal. Farts of fields
>Is it not made of elementary particles?
Fields
>If the elementary constituents are not objectively real then how is that which is constructed of these constituents objectively real? It's not
Correct, fellow hardened light projection.

>>14536803
>What will this mean for mathematical calculations?
Absolutely fuckall.

>>14536850
All of the problems you listed get worse because of math

>Be bank
>have no quantities
>make up the quantities using debt
>"You owe me these quantities that never existed in the first place"

>Be INS
>Count "0" documents
>Because immigrants are "undocumented"
>quantitatively these people don't exist so there is no problem.
>"Illegal immigrants? No they're just undocumented workers, we don't have the papers to prove how illegal they are".

>>14536866
>think of all the disappointed furries
So all of them because their lives are fucked beyond comprehension?

>>14534993
>No it's not matter it's ideas that have a smallest unit!
Worse than I though. Materialism applied to what is known not to be material.

>ideas which can be expressed umambiguously only in mathmatical language
Yeah, except the simplest triangle that exists or any other expression which is abused.

>>14535008
>The smallest part
So materialism

>>14525390
>A ratio is a value.
It contains values and is a comparison of them, retard. That's why you can't put "0" in it and have it come out with a value. So please tell me what value "1/3" represents (if you can)?
>inb4, hurr no the comparison of numbers is a number!

>>14525447
>0.n, where n is any number you want it to be such that when multiplied by 3 it adds up to 1
Well that's not a quantity. That's just a sentence full of cope as to why you can't actually give me a value.

>Yes it does, all numbers are made up
And what I'm trying to tell you is that you can't even "make up" the number without making math pointless as you're suggesting it really is.
>the only limiting factor is your retarded brain incapable of creating better and more refined models.
It's true. Math really can't explain how the universe functions and is simply a language we reified.

>>14525486
>uhh no, thats not how the experiment works retard
And the standard of measure they used in whatever experiment you're referring to in order to actually "measure the speed of light" is what? The meter, which was imagined in the way I already accurately described in that post. It has to be imagined/estimated, there's even more simple examples in where math fails miserably at trying to calculate distances.
>but what would two intersecting magnitudes at right angles have to do with electromagnetism?

>>14512386
>The quantity is 0.3333
So why did you use the "...". Are you sure that is the quantity you want to use now?

>go to any calculator right now, divide 1 with 3 and you get this very wrong answer
Interesting. It too gives me the "...", signifying that it cannot even determine the answer. So who are you to say that it is "the wrong answer"? It doesn't even give me the entire answer in the first place.

>I asked you to prove that 1/3 = 0.3333,
No you asked me to prove "1/3=0.333...", there's a difference. Even so, you still have asked me to once again to equate an undefined to a number, which I cannot do (for I cannot determine what 1/3 actually is quantitatively).

>you clearly posted a very disagreeing response
Disagree? No, I am kindly asking you to please finish the question.

>avoiding the question
The only one avoiding the question is you. You're avoiding finishing asking the question you want answered. So please tell me what this "..." represents, or please give me an actual quantity to apply math to.

>because you know fuck all about mathematics
You're the only one asking me to equate two undefineds using math when I'm trying to explain to you that both are simply expressions that don't represent an actual quantity.

>>11320537
Isn't the first example nor the last that suggests it. In fact most of his paradoxes can be related to what Parmenides believed as he was his student at one point.

>>10778034
>>10778061

>>10504625

>>10479186

Energy and momentum alter the geometry of spacetime in a manner specified by the Einstein Field Equations.

A "field" has no quantity. Also:

>light has a speed

No.

>(which you can think of as a kind of distance formula for spacetime, a la Pythagorean Theorem)

Oops.