/sci/ - Science & Math

This has literally nothing to do with wildberger's objections on the foundations of math. In fact I'm sure finite algebraic extensions of the rationale are something that he has few problems with.

>>10988774
>Only plot real numbers
>Only see real numbers
Really makes you think. What a quality post

>>10988791
another phrase for "real numbers" is numbers that actually exist anon

>>10988774
I see a perfectly valid intersection.

>>10988865
>the magical world even comes in rainbowvision

You can't make this shit up

>>10988869
oh wait, you can. That's the problem

>>10988869
Remind me again, is Wildberger's problem with just the non-computable numbers or with all real numbers?

>>10988883
He has a problem with the treatment of all non-algebraic numbers. I've never seen him discuss non-computables but I'm sure non-computables fit his general statement of disgust towards things that "We can't even imagine them, we can only imagine that we can imagine them"

>>10988905
Well, if he accepts algebraics he accepts sqrt(-1). What makes sense. Given the e geometrical interpretation of the complex numbers, there's no great conceptual difficulty to the a+bi idea (as long as you believe a and b exist, I guess)

>>10988989
There's no great conceptual difficulty to understanding the rotation of a hypertorus. It doesn't mean its anything more than a puzzle for nerds

>>10988820
>anything more than 1 dimension doesn't exist
Based schizoposter

>>10989020
no, clearly three dimensions exist. Just because you can represent something in three dimensions doesn't mean it exists or is especially relevant.

>>10989033
So you agree quaternions exist? Which are just an extension of imaginary numbers. Which means those exist. Great we can agree on that.

>>10989039
I'm not even sure numbers exist. I do know that certain sets of them are imminently relevant whether or not they exist in some ultimate ontological sense. I am not convinced this is the case with imaginary numbers, or quaternions or many other inventions of mathematics.

>>10989044
Deconstructing math like that only leads to the conclusion that abstract thought itself doesn't exist, which puts someone at the equivalent of a 60 IQ nigger in a sub saharan village, or a particularly smart chimpanzee.
Yes obviously numbers don't "exist", neither real nor imaginary, but we can think about them as if and form axioms around them to work with them. Imaginary numbers don't exist, because they are an abstract concept of 2 dimensional coordinates, but you can obviously use them to prove and calculate things and get the right result.

>>10989069
>questioning categories of reality makes you a spear-hucker

Great, I'll tell everyone on /lit/ this, I'm sure they'll appreciate the subtlety of this perspective.

>>10989074
>I'm gonna tell my internet friends, they will laugh at you!
>That means your argument is invalid!
You are literally questioning abstract thought. There's no insight to be gained here.

>>10989080
I'm not doing it in a way that is deleterious to my ability to function or even obstructs this conversation. I'm merely framing what the question is. We're not really asking whether an abstract concept "tangibly exists" but rather how relevant it is, which is related to the mythological manifestation, which might easily be mistaken for tangible existence but actually isn't.

>Not having high verbal and logical IQ

>>10989006
What a retarded take.
Complex numbers can model useful electricity stuff, what obviously makes them mote useful than as a brainteaser for nerds.
There's also other things that can be represented by the complex numbers.

>>10989093
/lit/ sound like faggots if you're any indication. We have no reason to make what we write here inaccessible to normie-levels of intelligence. Trying to gatekeep on /sci/ just leads to worse ignorance. Better to make it obvious what we mean so people don't go fucking haywire with wrong beliefs.

>>10989099
I don't doubt it and neither does Wildberger but is it the most essential method? We cannot know this.

>>10988774
Redpill me on this Wildberger guy

>>10989093
Abstract concepts are by definition not tangible. You are just wasting everyone's time reiterating the definition of abstract concepts, because your question has a very obvious answer that arises from its definition.
Do imaginary numbers exist? No. Neither do numbers. Neither does any math or science in general. This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

>>10989093
/lit/ is a bunch of idiots who think they're smart, and based on this post, you're no exception

>>10989144
/lit/ here, that guy is retarded ignore him. the fact that math is real proves that the immaterial is real etc etc

>>10989106
He makes shitty youtube videos like a schizo , but he's actually a maths prof.

>>10989093
>high verbal IQ
>writes like an ineloquent fag

>>10989285
for fuck's sake, whatever you think of my writing, I did not compare the entire pursuit of epistemology to throwing spears like the jackass I replied to.

>>10989293
Anon, you're a bit retarded. I'm a /litfag/ too and your whole argument is just..retarded. Read more.

>>10989300
What is my argument? I didn't even make an argument. I just said that numbers and operations may or may not exist but the question at hand, isn't of their existence but of their utility. How the fuck is that even controversial?

>>10989315
>I didn't even make an argument. I just said that numbers and operations may or may not exist
You
are making an argument.

>>10989321
that's just accounting for the diversity of the perspectives on the issue. Some people think numbers exist and some don't. Not controversial.

>>10988774
How do graphs even work? Why are they 2D when life is 3D?

>>10988774
You could argue this shit for negative numbers, something like 1-x=3 wouldn't be possible if you ignore negative numbers.

>>10989020
anything is a dimension. Apple is a dimension, one apple, two apples, three apples. However, things are just aproximations. There will be never two things that are the same.

>>10989337
negative numbers prove their utility in even the most basic algebra

>>10989325
>I'm not even sure numbers exist
>that's just accounting for the diversity of the perspectives on the i

>>10989351
>can't distinguish a statement of personal belief from an objective claim

yep, you definitely got that verbal iq

>>10989325
>Some people think numbers exist and some don't
Of course numbers don't exist the way electrons exist. Math is just the process of constructing sets of rules and exploring the implications of those rules. Sometimes it's even helpful for modelling physical phenomena.

>>10989144
/lit/ unironically has a significantly higher average IQ than /sci/

>>10989415
Well nobody is going full brainlet with the physicalism approach. But the question of whether numbers are hard-coded into the universe without minds to apprehend them is a real and significant question in philosophy.

Mathematics is discovered.
Even the axioms are discovered - there exists an infinite set of axiomatic systems, and you choose one, and find tautologies and such within it.
ANYONE who believe "math is invented" or something like that, is dumb.

>>10989418
Don't tell me you actually believed that infographic was rigorously sourced

>>10989434
The universe follows rules that can be expressed mathematically. What more is there to discuss on the subject?

>>10989439
You can tell by the level of discourse on both boards. Most /lit/ posters have stem degrees as well. Most /sci/ posters are midwit IQ pseuds who actually believe things like "science replaced philosophy!!" and other midwit retard shit.

/lit/ user here. That guy above is fucking retarded. Most of /lit/ is retarded yet they all think so highly of themselves. They hide their banal ideas behind vague vocabularies because they are afraid of being criticized. The board is truly awful. It sucks that I am interested in literature and not science or math.
Saged, as I do not want to interfere with your catalog.

>>10989448
And /lit/ is full of Christian boomers who hardly read anything that isn't the bible.

>>10989448
>midwit IQ pseuds
This guy is a grade A /lit/ poster. He thinks so highly of himself but for some reason is never able to conjure a substantial counterargument against anyone or anything. These fools always resort to name calling and they never say anything meaningful. People like you make /lit/ shitty.
Saged, again.

>>10989458
>>10989466
>>10989467
I don't even post on /lit/, but you have no arguments. What I said is true, most /sci/ posters are fucking retarded.

>>10989480
that's because /sci/ is a troll board. yes we act retarded sometimes, but it's all in good fun as an inside joke. occasionally you get the retard (like you) who isn't in on the joke and tries to poke holes into everything to make themselves feel smarter. but if you go into an actual IQ test thread most people here are really smart.

>>10989480
>I don't even post on /lit/
Doesn't matter. You're clearly heavily influenced by /lit/'s methods of name-calling, strawmanning, ad hominem and so on. You are no different than them.

>>10989350
Yeah that's my point, the same thing applies with complex numbers. They might seem impossible at first glance but they're legitimate numbers. I mean negatives are less than zero, which means less than nothing, so it wouldn't make sense to some people.

>>10988774
>so you wanted to call me an incel on the internet huh /sci/?
>well take this!

>>10988774
>No zeroes
>The zero is (0,4)

>>10989565
what kind of ape calls the Y intercept a "zero"

Does anyone know why squirt 2 is unsolvable?

>>10989565
How old are you anon?

>>10989617
Yes

>>10989435
calculus was invented.

>>10989745
Then why is that, then?

>>10989888
>10
>9
>8
>9888
Holy cow, this is epic

>>10989891
>10
>98
>98
>91
heh, Say so yourself.

>>10989888
>>10989891
>>10989894
woah

>>10989897
XD

>>10989900
Uh

>>10989912
>>10989900
>>10989888
See that OP? Your shitpost thread is now a GET THREAD! @@!DD

>>10989929
based

>>10989888

He's full of shit. No one knows. Yeah, that's the fundamental and "inconvenient" truth that these pompous asses will never admit. The Greeks didn't know, and now 2000 years later we still dont know. Something so fundamental, something so seemingly simple, and it defies explanation. But yeah we should keep on having faith in current math as being the supreme logic system, as being the most pure science, right? No. Its not. It's glorified bean counting at best.