/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12464512
I agree. if math is supposed to be grounded in reality, assuming any kind of associativity is fake math.

>>12464515
based

any math that cant be explained in reality is completely useless and could never be verified to be true

>>12464515
>if math is supposed to be grounded in reality
except it's not, nigger.

>>12464537
DAS RITE!!! WHITE PEOPLE MAGIC N SHIET!

>>12464543
i'm not even racist but i kek'd so hard to this. thank you for the laugh racist anon

>>12464537
SCHIZO ALERT
Let me just do my math based on the voices in my head! HAHA
I cant take my meds because first Id have to go 1/2 way to taking them, 3/4 way, then 7/8 way, then 15/16 way. I'll never actually finish getting to my meds, so i can never actually take them!!! haha

>>12464512
lmao

and don't let me start about strokes. scientifically speaking, you can't have two completely identical strokes. and even if you could, there's no way you could measure it because of uncertainty principle. natural numbers are a scam.

>>12464570
there are only two numbers: zero and one

>>12464579
based [math] \mathbb{Z}_2 [/math] retard

>>12464583
>Z
no, there are no such thing as negative numbers you schizo

based

>>12464528
Ah The " directly from the book" argument retard.

>>12464537
Everything is black and white for you isn't it? Get some help

>>12464512
Addition and multiplication don't imply other functions. f(g(x)) =/= g(f(x)) in some cases (arguably most).

2+3+4 is also 4+2+3. It can be verified if you count things.

>>12464930
that's just commutativity

This thread is dumb and a fail. If no one plays the straight man until post 14 you're just jizzing in the wind.

>>12464956
keep seething, pseud

OP here. I've yet to hear a single convincing argument against my post. Literally every algebraic structure you idiots use relies on fake associativity.

>>12464512
a thread died for thee

>>12464512
associativity is the biggest bitch to prove for discrete sets. ugh

>>12464512
OP, you are a genuine idiot.
If I (put on my shirt then put on my tie) then (put on my suit), how is that different than if I (put on my shirt) then (put on my tie then put on my suit)? They are equivalent statements that describe exactly the same one-time scenario. This has nothing to do with time or thermodynamics.

>>12465270
You're describing commutativity. You can change the order of putting on attire. I'm talking about associativity.

>>12464512
>>12464515
>>12464528
>>12464543
>>12464557
>>12464570
>>12464616
>>12464621
>>12465037
All retards

>>12465275

ITT: people misrepresenting finitism and refusing to actually engage with the arguments
You're not funny op.

>>12465270
what do () imply? That's right, the order of operation. You can't do something in the future and then apply it backwards. a(bc) is a bullshit statement

>>12464579
>zero/nothing
>number/"is"

>>12464512
But that's not what you're doing. Typically you have an action a*b you can perform for some objects a,b.
a*(b*c) means you first multiply b*c to get a number x, then you multiply a*x to get the result.
(a*b)*c means that you first multiply a*b to get an answer y, then multiply y*c to get the answer.
There is no actual jumping back in time involved.

>>12464512
Thats only the case for discrete functions

>>12466105
>first do something that was last
>then do something that was first
>There is no actual jumping back in time involved.

>>12464512
I really like this new version of /sci/ completely shitting on the math establishment and actually asking the questions that everyone is secretly wondering for once without the fear of getting cancelled by the status quo. The general population cannot get cancelled but they're too stupid to ask them. The academics are so fragile that one wrong word ends in a career dead-end so they will never utter something like this. /sci/ is in the perfect spot where it's both of these and neither of them at the same time.

To neo/sci/, unstucking society from the local minimum that it has stagnated within since as far back as 18th century.

>>12466124
Real numbers rely on associativity. Associativity isn't real. Therefore there can be no continuous functions and every function is discrete.

>>12464537
>nigger
Why the racism?

>>12464512
Not true for prime identities.

>>12466283
OP's question is really rather stupid

>>12466348
could you elaborate?

>>12466353
Certainly. Consider a multiplication table as a proof of all prime numbers. For m and n >=2 by their non existence in that domain space. This means that every prime number for any 2d or >2d space can only be defined as some area/volume etc by associative addition and not by associative multiplication. This would imply there are prime holes in dimensional spaces that serve as base identities for said space.

>>12466349
It's not, he just didn't articulate it properly. While you can construct a special snowflake algebraic structure for every taste you can potentially have, the main one that society has accepted to use is the one he's talking about, namely the one that forces associativity as the ultimate undeniable axiom along with a few other things. It is not as much of an issue of "is a construction with associativity valid" but rather "why is the standard that we've all decided to use demanding it", which is a very legitimate criticism. Wildberger's criticisms stem from the exact same problem, it's not that the reals should be outlawed and that you can't have your special cases where you implement them, but the standard of math that is used all over the world - the standard that we use in empirical applications - there is no point of having them in there because we will literally never use them. We will never use [math]\sqrt{2}[/math] but an approximation of it. It is physically impossible within this universe to use it because the universe itself is finitist. It's an unbounded infinity of space but everything inside is finite, which is (basically) what OP meant by mentioning thermodynamics. So if we're going to accept one and only one set of axioms who're the standard then that standard should by all means be related to our physical reality, else it's pretty much useless. Here's the problem in all of the above - that the academia refuses to accept this because it'd take too much energy for the establishment to re-calibrate according to it and the path of least resistance is simply ignoring it. You can't be a one man army like Wildberger either or you'll get called a schizo. The only place that such a discussion can happen and attack this cemented establishment is on a decentralized forum where there's no repercussions to your image, which is the reason why this has not happened so far in our society.

>>12466392
>Consider a multiplication table as a proof of all prime numbers
I don't follow. Why do we need a "proof of all prime numbers"? What are we proving exactly? Are we listing every known prime by using a multiplication table and using something like the sieve of Eratosthenes to pick out all the primes?

> You cannot jump forwards in time,
there is no concept of time in an equation
it's an instantaneous equality
and why are you applying thermodynamics to algebra.
your'e a retard
kill yourself

>>12466545
>applying thermodynamics to algebra
uhm.. based
Thermodynamic Algebra when

>>12464515
>>12464528
>>12464512
Based samefagging

>>12466555
checked

>>12466274
There is no notion of first and last involved. Associativity isn't about time.

Sure, it's not true in all branches of math / science. Quaternions would be a good example. What were you hoping to achieve by stating this?

>>12464557
You got a chuckle from me, anon. Thanks.

>>12464557
best post this week

Ok then: give a me cuboid which you can get a different volume based on the order you choose to multiply the sides.

>>12467472
I agree with this anon, there are many areas of math were the associative property changes/does not apply. In it's simplest form, the one OP is referencing, you learn how it work with integers and the like, but vectors fail to satisfy the multiplicative associative property, no?

>>12464512
True, math is language and only reflects reality very poorly (if it does), just like shadows on a dimly lit wall

>>12464537
so then his statement is vacuously true, no?

>>12465275
you can first tuck your shirt in your coat and then put them both on together at once.
This is associativity.

>>12468945
>>12466274

>>12466283
this anon gets it

>>12466403
this anon gets it