/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11934344
Didn’t nobody adopt his stuff because it takes like 10 years to read and understand or something?

>>11934344
>Question things like base 10
You realize that all number bases follow the exact same rules and behave the exact same way, right? People talking about going to hex or base 12 are fucking idiots. Is it a better system? Maybe. Is it worth changing literally everything? No

>>11934344
>Most people don't even question fundamental things like base 10

Yes they do. The romans had base 12 for fractions, and base 10 for whole numbers. But they abandoned base 12 because when you used decimals, it got messy. Having a 5 as a factor of your base is more useful, as it simplifies harder problems than 3 does.

>>11934344
>Most people don't even question fundamental things like base 10
Because the usage of base 10 is arbitrary and conventional. There's nothing to question, everybody knows it's just what we use as humans, just like everybody knows hexadecimal is just an arbitrary convention to simplify binary mathematics.

>>11934384
As modern, mathematical humans, I should say. Plenty of cultures past and present used non-base 10 systems, but in current math usage base 10 is the standard for entirely arbitrary reasons.

>>11934344

Classical physics was very careful by using centuries of data before inducing axioms. Newtons laws and Maxwells equations can be traced back to observations from ancient Greece. However, modern physics is usually based on only one data point.

>>11934385
>Arbitrary
It’s because you have 10 fingers. The trade off between money spent on switching is not worth it at all, especially when we have machines that work in base 2 doing almost all of our math for us anyways

>>11934344
>It was invented the same way religions(something scientists love to criticize) are

Science is fundamentally different from religion. In religion, a book is the primary source of truth. In science, the repeatable results of experiments are the primary source of truth.

> Two things that can never happen in religion:

1). Albert Einstein proved that Issac Newton was 'wrong' about gravity. But both men are still revered as pioneers in science.

2). It's possible to have a debate where both sides quickly admit they were wrong when new data becomes available.
- Example: The expansion of the universe. Some scientists thought that the universe would eventually stop expanding, and gravity would cause it to contract into a big crunch. Others thought that gravity was not strong enough to do this, so the expansion would get slower and slower, but never quite stop.
- When measurements became available, everyone was astounded to see that the universal expansion was speeding up. No one predicted this! But the measurements held up to scrutiny, and within a year, everyone was convinced. Not even Jesus could change so many people's minds so fast! And without a shred of violence!

>>11934448
>a book is the primary source of truth
Yep, this is the state of STEMtists in 2020... These are the people who think they are reasonable and educated. This is why I won't even reply to your other objections, if someone is that retarded it's pointless to argue.

>>11934467
>heh ur just too dumb to debate with me

>>11934493
>thinks his post is going to be le epik refutation with a space pic
>makes a mistake on the first sentence but the mistake on the second one is beyond human reasoning
Yes, you're in-fact too dumb to debate with human beings. How does it feel to be an emotional subhuman who believes in fairy tales?

>>11934448
>Albert Einstein proved that Issac Newton was 'wrong' about gravity. But both men are still revered as pioneers in science.
>>11934467
>Yep, this is the state of STEMtists in 2020...

Everybody is looking for the Grand Unified theory, with the understanding that this would prove Einstein wrong. Can you imagine some exciting young priest who's life goal was to disprove Jesus?

>won't even reply to your other objections, if someone is that retarded
Well you descended to name calling real fast. That is the closest you get to an admission of defeat on 4chan, so I will graciously accept.

>>11934513
>Can you imagine some exciting young priest who's life goal was to disprove Jesus?
>STEMtists comparing Einstein to Jesus
Some people simply don't deserve rights.

>>11934344
why question base 10? we barely get any utility from switching to a different base system. waste of time you are retarded. kill yourself.

>>11934519
The point is that they don't. Hence trying to disprove Einstein is a noble goal in science, while trying to disprove Jesus is blasphemy. That is the difference between science and religion.

>>11934548
>Einstein is a noble goal in science
Huh? Everyone will tell you that you're wasting your life or that you're a crackpot, it's just as blasphemy. Also for that comparison alone you don't deserve any serious replies. It's bizarre how uneducated some people are.

>>11934344
>Most people don't even question fundamental things like base 10
that's not even the issue
people completely ignore the fact that the very first number we built our entire framework on top of, 0, is completely flawed and has special exclusion from the rules that should apply to the rest of them. And when you bring it up they just stutter "u-uh, undefined?" or "in what wheel bro" while never truly answering the question. Then you ask them what the root of a negative number is even supposed to be and their brains melt and default into dogmatic mantras.

>>11934558
"Einstein had to be dragged screaming to the idea that the Universe began in a Big Bang. After learning from the Belgian mathematician Georges Lemaître that General Relativity (GR) predicts the creation of the Universe, he dismissively replied: “Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable”. "

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-einstein-got-wrong/

>>11934653
Look up Hyperreals and Complex numbers.

>>11934659
Yeah he was a devout Christian and was devastated he was disproving the Bible

We need a new scientific paradigm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

>>11934671
>Einstein
>Christian

>>11934665
ah yes thanks for pointing out the other major flaw of modern mathematics which is the infinitesimals
>bro its like zero but not actually zero so lets pretend that its zero for a second to trick the equation XD
literal pseud garbage that's only legitimized because people refuse to delegitimize it. It's no different than saying that Jesus sits next to the zero and it was Jesus who made the division by zero compute, both equally falsifiable statements.

>>11934344
Yup checked, was Newton the first Mathematician, or the last of the magicians?

>>11934371
A society that separates their mathematicians from their engineers will have a society built on a mathematics that doesn't reflect nature

>>11934383
I'm fine with base 12 or base 10, maybe 12 a bit more given the application to the chromatic scale.

>>11934710
but I'm largely unbaised as the 12 spheres of closest packing make the cubooctahedron

>>11934712
and from the cubooctahedron, emerges the 8 tetrahedron pointed in a wonderful tip to tip geometry

>>11934710
>>11934712
If you like base 12, or any base for that matter, feel free to convert decimal into that base and work in it. Expecting society to adapt essentially a new language for no real reason is stupid

>>11934717
Into a wonderful crescendo that defines 9 as the point of the vector equilibrium.

Base 12 is informational. Base 10 Polodially Dynamic

>>11934722
Checked, I myself, wouldn't expect a society to diverge itself from the geometrically prestine base 10. I'm just highlighting that base 12 is a different side of the same coin to me,

>>11934686
ahh, i see the algebretards have arrived

>>11934685
Yes!

>>11934710
does every twelfth fibonacci number's digit sum add to 9?

>>11934344
axioms are gay and if you believe them you're a gay retard
scientifically speaking.
there's not proof for any of your shitty assumptions.
things that are true simply are within themselves.
that's what makes them true.