/sci/ - Science & Math

What would eating a bowl full of tardigrades taste like?
Would eating enough tardigrades grant me their superpowers?

>>10236230
>>10236611
>not being a platonist

I pity you.

>>9830753
>and aren't numbers some type of synthetic manmade construct

>>9487048
We cannot know now since social science is complete garbage masquerading as anything close to resembling reality. Most social science studies are garbage manipulations involving p-hacking, shoddy analyses, low-power, misinterpretations, ridden with terrible models. So we cannot the reason why men outnumber women in mathematics defintively.

>>9412252
>Completeness
>Consistency
>Effective Axiomatization

You can't argue this.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems. What exactly does it mean, philosophically?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Am I interpreting that for any system there are true but unprovable statements? If so, is there truths that cannot be proven?

>>9171255
>>9171278
>>9171933
>muh math is logic
>muh math is literally everything
are /sci/entists so retarded that they don't know about this guy?

hol up

he was a logician

>at the age of six or seven Kurt suffered from rheumatic fever; he completely recovered, but for the rest of his life he remained convinced that his heart had suffered permanent damage.
>He developed paranoid symptoms, including a fear of being poisoned, and spent several months in a sanitarium for nervous diseases
>Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution that could allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship
>He studied and admired the works of Gottfried Leibniz, but came to believe that a hostile conspiracy had caused some of Leibniz's works to be suppressed
>Later in his life, Gödel suffered periods of mental instability and illness. He had an obsessive fear of being poisoned; he would eat only food that his wife, Adele, prepared for him. Late in 1977, she was hospitalized for six months and could no longer prepare her husband's food. In her absence, he refused to eat, eventually starving to death
>Gödel was a convinced theist, in the Christian tradition

What the fuck was his problem?

>>8925042
>master race of soft science
I don't think linguistics are 'soft' science that much.

One could make a decent argument that all other than physics, chemistry and biology are soft sciences but the reality is that any field of science out there is just field of science. Any of them can be made hard or easy.

Thing with physics, for example, is that the tools are already quite advanced and any major can do some small research about how ball goes here and there quite well. On the other hand such small experiments don't have much to give to the field and the majority do just that, the soft science, since that's all they can and know.

Does linguistics have more soft scientists? Yes. Does that make it soft or worthless? No.

>>8845026

>mfw the germans are hiding in my theorems

>>8808575

*starts a new low calorie diet*

>PM was an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. As such, this ambitious project is of great importance in the history of mathematics and philosophy,[1] being one of the foremost products of the belief that such an undertaking may be achievable.

>However, in 1931, Gödel's incompleteness theorem proved definitively that PM, and in fact any other attempt, could never achieve this lofty goal; that is, for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, either the system must be inconsistent, or there must in fact be some truths of mathematics which could not be deduced from them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

The man who destroyed Mathematics

*Destroys mathematics*

Are all mathematically true statements provable?

Gödel's incompleteness theorems say that
a) any consistent axiomatic system (i.e. set of axioms) encoding arithmetic will not be able to prove certain arithmetic results;
b) the consistency of the axioms cannot be proved within the system.

Can we avoid these pitfalls if we just take a proper class of axioms, instead of only a set of axioms?

Can /sci/ explain to a brainlet like me the relevance and consequences of Gödel's theorems?

>Arguably be the greatest logician of all time (or at least the greatest logician since Aristotle)

>come up with arguably one of the greatest achievement in human thought, and probably the greatest mathematical achievement of the 20th century

>believe that you are being secretly poison and god


Yes, yes i know that being a mathematical logician is not the same as always thinking logically, but i just find it ironic sometimes


Is there a difference between scientific/mathematical and practical intellect?