/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11367920
Truth is defined with respect to logic. Math is only true in that it logically follows from axioms. Please explain what you think truth is outside those contexts.

>>11367920
If you are questioning the foundations of logic and math, then why do you appeal to the notion of circular reasoning which is based on the laws of logic which are based on axioms which are circular definitions by definition.

>>11367920
Freaky philosophy aside a lot of concepts you can verify with applications in reality that are more comfortable to our usual experiences with our senses and that will pass the threshold for us to believe it

>>11367920
Litterally doesn't matter unless you're a schizo or Goedell.

>>11367920
wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

>>11367983
Wrong. Truth is what exists, and logic is only the recognition if patterns in it, patterns which as far as we know might only be a small aspect or feature of Truth.

>>11368130
I find it amusing that I independently developed this, posted it here, and some anon linked that page.

>>11367920
they work

>>11368137
Incorrect, math is true regardless of whether it exists or represents what exists.

>>11368187
When math doesn't correlate with reality, it is false, whether it's accepted by the mathematic community at this point or not.

>>11367983
>truth is predetermined by logic
unjustified foundation for logic
>>11368016
it's a heuristic question you retard
>>11368030
>appealing to your senses to tell you the truth
demonstrate that you aren't living in the matrix then, epistemology 101 isn't "freaky philosophy"
>>11368031
>>11368169
>>11368232
these are opinions
>>11368187
by what standard of truth

mathematicians might just be theologians in denial

back to >>/his/ you massive continental faggot

>>11368232
>When math doesn't correlate with reality, it is false
It's already proven true, so that's false. And how do you prove math doesn't correlate to reality anyway? That would require some unmathematical interpretation, in which case a lack of correlation has disproved the interpretation, not the mathematics.

>>11368374
>>truth is predetermined by logic
>unjustified foundation for logic
That's not a foundation for logic, it's a result of logic. If you attempt to define truth outside of the context of logic, you'll fail.

>by what standard of truth
Logic.

>mathematicians might just be theologians in denial
A theologian is ultimately making claims about reality, mathematicians are not.

>>11367920
>how do you prove the truth of logic and math without presupposing that they're true
math/logic is axiomatic. you start from a base assumption and work from there

>>11368374
>It's already proven true.
By some arithmetic sophistics?
To begin with, If something is whether 1 or 0, it is NEVER 0.5
And this paradoxical result of that sophistry proves just that.
You can go get some doctorate with this, I don't care. No wonder that shit is only used in string theory, which was never confirmed, because it's utter bs. I'm sorry to wake you up like this, but every field is corrupted, most probably by some vile schizoreligious intention.

>>11368872
that response >>11369011 was for you

>>11368909
all the axioms can be derived from definitions
you can go get some doctorate with this claim too

>>11367920
Even if you could prove that logic, math and philosophy are all true, without any presuppositions, it would mean nothing. It would simply be God tricking you to believe something true which actually isn't.

>>11369023
>all the axioms can be derived from definitions
Sure?, and those definitions are axioms.
https://mathigon.org/world/Axioms_and_Proof

>>11367920
it just werks

>>11369023
>axioms can be derived
wew laf

>>11369023
>axioms can be derived
wew lad

>a hurr bluuble duuurrrrr you cant kno nuffin
this is the power of philosophy

>>11369043
>and those definitions are axioms
you can call them that, but it completely changes the point of view on them

>>11369061
>you can call them that, but it completely changes the point of view on them
If you start from a definition then those definitions are, by definition, axioms.

>>11369023
> all the axioms can be derived from definitions
> you can go get some doctorate with this claim too
If you are that stupid, you would have trouble to graduate elementary school in the first place. Sort of a stumbling block to achieve your doctorate.

>>11369011
>By some arithmetic sophistics?
By logical deduction.

>To begin with, If something is whether 1 or 0, it is NEVER 0.5
>And this paradoxical result of that sophistry proves just that.
I have no clue what you're trying to say. Take your meds.

>>11369065
Thus math community will not butthurt too much with this new approach. The benefits of such approach is rather obvious, don't you agree?

>>11369068
>yoo stoopeed
nice argumentation, bro

>>11369086
>By logical deduction.
demonstrate
>I have no clue what you're trying to say
thus you have no idea what you're talking about

>>11369086
>>11369101
the previous piece

>>11369101
>demonstrate
Demonstrate what?

>thus you have no idea what you're talking about
I do, I have no idea what you're talking about since you spout gibberish and won't clarify.

>>11369096
It's "stupid", as in, lacking intelligence, being a fool. Don't worry, if you hang around /sci for a while you will get a pretty good feel for what it means.

>>11369113
>Demonstrate what?
that very logical deduction you was talking about
(a man who cannot follow the thread of the dialogue calls somebody a fool, what an irony!)

>>11369113
>Demonstrate what?
oh, I see, you was say "math was proven true" in general, you don't mind that picrelated I give you that sum of infinite positive row is a negative fraction.
Don't worry kid, school won't fool you, it won't dare.

>>11369093
>Thus math community will not butthurt too much with this new approach. The benefits of such approach is rather obvious, don't you agree?
Agree with what? Math starts with axioms, which can be definitions.

>>11369142
>you don't mind that picrelated I give you that sum of infinite positive row is a negative fraction.
That's not a sum. Did you actually take a YouTube video for entertainment literally? LOL.

>>11369148
>Math starts with axioms, which can be definitions
They surely can, but show me a textbook where they are.

>>11369149
>That's not a sum.
What is it then?
And why do they call it sum?

>>11369165
>What is it then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_continuation

>And why do they call it sum?
Who does? It's called a divergent series and has no sum.

>>11369178
What is the difference between sum and summation?
And why do you need to use this misleading form to put it as picrelated?

>>11369159
>They surely can, but show me a textbook where they are.
Is this a troll? Spivak's Calculus (one of the most famous math textbooks here) Ch.1 begins with axioms...

>>11369159
To be specific, Spivak's Calculus starts with a set of 13 axioms which characterize the real numbers and then derives all the results you're familiar with in calculus.

Like you have to be trolling right? There is no way you're for real right now... ?

>>11369198
>What is the difference between sum and summation?
The sum is the result of a summation. They can be used interchangeably in most cases.

>And why do you need to use this misleading form to put it as picrelated?
That's not a summation or a sum, it's false. You seem to be very confused.

>>11369213
>That's not a summation or a sum, it's false.
go edit wiki then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_%E2%8B%AF (and all those textbooks)

>>11369219
Why? The wikipedia article explains it perfectly:

>where the left-hand side has to be interpreted as being the value obtained by using one of the aforementioned summation methods and not as the sum of an infinite series in its usual meaning.

Did you not read the context or are you purposefully ignoring it in a pathetic attempt to misrepresent mathematics?

>>11369224
>left-hand side
it explains a lot

>>11369230
OK, schizo.

>>11369232
you also ignored my question:
> why do you need to use this misleading form to put it as picrelated?

>>11369237
The only one who used a misleading form is you since you purposely took that image out of its context in order to misrepresent it.

>>11369237
so what context makes sense of this?

>>11369239
so what context makes sense of this?

>>11369246
Are you incapable of reading your own source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_%E2%8B%AF

Fucking retard schizo.

>>11369254
Show me that you know what's in there and not just believe in mah consensus.

>>11369165
https://youtu.be/sD0NjbwqlYw?t=10m

>>11369258
>Show me that you know what's in there and not just believe in mah consensus.
It would be a waste of time trying to teach you about zeta regularization. You've been given all you need to understand the answers to your questions. Your inability to do so due to your inherent stupidity or mental illness is not my problem.

>>11369269
how convenient!
(now I am watching that video somebody kindly presented, will be back with you faggot in half an hour)
meanwhile try to figure out an answer on why your value of zeta function needs to look exactly like classical sum.
My guess so far is it's done to create a mindfuck in the students, so they don't try to understand (because they're taught to believe they're retards) so they believe the authority (the main function of the school is to teach people to obey)

>>11369277
>make arbitrary demands even though you've already lost the argument
>opponent refuses
>declare victory
How convenient!

>meanwhile try to figure out an answer on why your value of zeta function needs to look exactly like classical sum.
It doesn't. Being obsessed with appearances and arbitrary notation and driving conspiracy theories from them is a sure sign of schizophrenic delusions.

>>11369292
> arbitrary notation
oh wow!
That topic will take me a little more than half an hour, but I will do my best to comprehend it (and not just to take it on faith as you definitely did) don't go away

>>11369303
>didn't read his own source before making claims about a topic he has no knowledge of
>accuses others of taking things on faith

>>11369261
mind explaining it by parts for all of us from some other fields?
Why the result for (.5)^3i = -(.5)? + -(~.88)i?
I know you won't regret it, because whenever I explain something I know I understand it better (whenever I share some cool videos, waves of information deliver me more of those)

>>11369334
Oof it's a Russian schizo.

>>11369316
It doesn't matter how many books (or other sources) you've read.
What matters is how many of those you've understood.
And it seems you understood fuck-all

>>11369339
Whenever this level of argumentation is in action, one may be sure that something is fishy.
People like you make no favor to science, in fact you make believers look rational. Because you're a believer yourself, but you pretend to be on the rational side.

>>11369355
>And it seems you understood fuck-all
>>11369372
>I'm not crazy, you're crazy!
Nice projection.

>>11369375
You don't know what science is.

>>11369383
See >>11369375

>>11369383
>stil ignoring that he was given explanations, not expert opinions
It's clear you are a schizo. You have a persecution complex and delusions of grandeur.

>>11369395
I'm still waiting for the answer to my rather simple question:
> Why the result for (.5)^3i = -(.5 + ~.88i)?
Consider it a special case for op's question.
And I don't try to refute it, I sincerely crave to understand, so I can go on with that video or zeta function.

>>11369388
science is an ambiguous term:
1) the method of finding the truth
2) the institution of control over those who participate in s(1)
And it's quite obvious what part of the crowd you are.

>>11369405
You didn't ask me that question but you get that result by taking the principal branch of the logarithm shown here:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ComplexExponentiation.html

>>11369415
Science doesn't find truth. It finds approximate models of reality. It's quite obvious you have no idea what you're talking about and your petty conspiracy theories can be ignored as delusional fantasy.

>>11369429
>approximate models of reality
That is what truth is. Absolute truth is unachievable by the definition of absolute.

>>11369429
Circular reasoned science is as legitimate as sophism, to be used if you're merely right but clearly over-reaching. As for those brave enough to resist the narrative, just show them the evidence and don't ask them to elaborate. They are my superiors, my superiors would find ways to annihilate me without a whimper.
Science is no more of a "truth" than the common attempts to shape reality through religion are a "truth". Your disrespect for science is downright criminal. It goes without saying that science is at the foundation of knowledge about the universe. I sincerely hope you find comfort in the knowledge that everyone else who was born after you did not exist to help you realize what is reality. (PS: You appear to have replaced your avowed atheism with religious fundamentalism. And to your credit, you must be embarrassed by your mental blindness.)

>>11369438
>That is what truth is.
No, approximate models of reality can be false. Truth cannot be false.

>Absolute truth is unachievable by the definition of absolute.
Mathematical theorems are absolutely true.

>>11369444
>approximate models of reality can be false
is your science dealing in finding false models of reality?
>Mathematical theorems are absolutely true.
oh wow! who's schizo here?

>>11369443
>Circular reasoned science is as legitimate as sophism, to be used if you're merely right but clearly over-reaching.
What circular reasoning?

>As for those brave enough to resist the narrative, just show them the evidence and don't ask them to elaborate.
Contrarianism doesn't make you brave. It's the easiest way for you to preserve the illusion that you are special and intelligent when you can't actually produce anything to show it. Hiding from reality is not brave, it's cowardly.

>>11369450
Thinking of Guttman's Cat is unthinkable.

No child should be taught absolute truth.

In order to possess the fallacy fallacy is needed.

No fact may be proved wrong by a biased point of view.

Factorial distribution is obvious.

Gettlin only demands a non-biased view of the truth.

Open-mindedness is a virtue not only for ideas, but for persons as well.

>>11369450
>is your science dealing in finding false models of reality?
Science has and will always continue to produce approximate but false models of reality. Again, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>>11369462
>Science has and will always continue to produce approximate but false models of reality.
>Mathematical theorems are absolutely true.
math, jews, DNST3

>>11369466
Any coherent thoughts left? Or are you just going to list buzzwords like a schizo?

>>11369472
Where do you think you are, anon? This has been the face of 4chan for years.

>>11369472
>Mathematical theorems are absolutely true.
A "theorem" of Jan-Erik Roos in 1961 stated that in an [AB4*] abelian category, lim1 vanishes on Mittag-Leffler sequences. This "theorem" was used by many people since then, but it was disproved by counterexample in 2002 by Amnon Neeman.

>>11368137
That is not truth, that is fact. Facts are true, but fact is not the entirely of truth.
There is factual truth, and then there is logical truth: Implication Y must be true if premise X is true, because Y being true is what it means for X to be true, whether or not X is true.
Y is thus logically true whether or not Y is factually true. To deny this is to appeal to circumstance.

>>11369495
Them it's not a theorem.

>>11369542
and why is that?

>>11369550
Because it wasn't proven.

>>11369558
stop speaking out of your ass
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/291151/what-was-the-error-in-the-proof-of-roos-theorem

>>11367920
Ok Kurt, now go back to your grave

>>11369563
Where do you see it proven in that link?

>>11367920
>Dur whats axioms

>>11369594
Let me make it easier for you: you wanted to say "100% accurately proven theorems are absolutely true" it's sweet, only a little tautologic, because 100% is the definition of absolute in this context.

>>11369622
A mathematical theorem is defined as a statement proven to be true. There seems to be a recent influx of idiots on this board attempting to talk about topics they have no knowledge of and making complete fools of themselves. Where did you come from?

>>11369645
>A mathematical theorem is defined as a statement proven to be true
Absolutely?

>>11369708
Within the confines of the given axioms, yes.The Field axioms for instance:
>0 =/= 1
>commutativity of addition/multiplication
>distributivity
>associativity
>existence of an additive inverse
>existence of a multiplicative inverse
>existence of additive/multiplicative identities
>closure under defined operations

There are many more axioms like the axioms of vector spaces, group axioms, ring axioms, lie axioms, axioms of "X" algebraic structure, axioms of set theory, ect. Mainly, how axioms are determined are arbitrary to an extent, but their consequences are very real for applied sciences, the application of group theory to chemistry/physics comes to mind as one of the most eminent examples.

>>11367920
If I say there's something on my desk, then you ask me how I know and I answer because I can see and touch it. There is no presupposition there.

>>11369953
you are presupposing that our perceptions of the universe are identical

>>11370258
anyone with eyes, a sense of touch and a functioning brain would see that there's something on the desk

>>11370279
have you ever hallucinated? how do you know you're not hallucinating?

>>11370280
you can be a brain a vat for that matter, doesn't change the fact that there's something on the desk.

>>11370287
no you oaf. it doesn't change the fact that you perceive something on the desk, but you cannot prove that it is there. you can't even prove that you can perceive it, others must simply believe your interpretation of the table. your perception is not equal to reality, no matter how close it may come

>>11370292
>no you oaf. it doesn't change the fact that you perceive something on the desk, but you cannot prove that it is there

Okay, no one cares.

>>11370292
no one's talking about proving you're not in the matrix or defining reality. all that's being proved is that there's something on the desk and nothing you say can change that fact.

>>11367920
How did you learn your first language without knowing another language first?