/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12635879
I'd classify them as schizophrenics playing an autistic game for entertainment. They are fucked in the head and at this point there is no hope any of their "contributions" will be used by people in an actual application. Math is already complete.

>>12635879
Artists

>>12635893
hows it already complete?

>>12635879
Can you choose a different image for your threads, OP? Not that I don't like tomoko, but starting every thread with the exact same picture is a bit strange outside of stealth porn threads.

>>12635879
Schizophrenic artists. Or is it spelled autists? Either way definitely schizo.

Artistic or autistic?

>>12635879
Also
>not posting sexy Tomoko

>>12635879
As scientists.
Artists can choose to change their work on a whim, they don't like this colour here or that shape there so they change or remove it. Mathematicians can't just decided that a theorem is displeasing to them therefore it's false. Mathematicians try to discover truths rather than create or shape them.

>>12635977
So then are philosophers scientists?

>>12636012
No, because there are no objectively true philosophies, otherwise philosophers wouldn't be arguing over everything. Math is objective and not a matter of opinion. I suppose the branch of philosophy that is logic would also be a science.

tomoko's smelly unwashed feet spread pneumonia i sniffed and now i have a bad cough and it hurts to breathe and i have to quarantine myself and it burns

>>12635879
They're a bit of both. The overall methodology and focus on proof is more scientific in nature, but mathematics really requires a certain degree of insanity to understand in a way closer to artists.

>>12636012
Prior to the modern era, yes. Science was considered nothing more than "natural philosophy" for the vast majority of civilized history. However, the emphasis on the scientific method and empiricism separate modern science from philosophy.

>>12636063
>there are no objectively true philosophies
This depends on your school of thought. Some philosophers certainly believe in objective truth, but it's much harder to properly determine what is the objective truth.

>>12636063
What about historians?

>>12635879
Math is the opposite of art. Art is subjective, you can make something that some people will think doesnt work but others will say it does and none of them are objectively right. You cant do that with math, rules of the universe are already there you are just discovering and trying to describe them

>>12637163
>CH blocks your path

>>12635879
Modern mathematicians? I'd classify them as schizos; modern math has as much connection to the real world as those autists analyzing Tolkien's elf languages(at least the latter know it's fantasy)

>>12635977
>Mathematicians try to discover truths rather than create or shape them.
They're not discovering anything and they literally do create nonsense-concepts out of pure imagination
Calabi-Yau manifolds don't exist in the real world

>>12635905
There aren't any further useful 'discoveries' in math that will be used by most people, even most experts. From here on its nothing but invented numbers and ridiculous generalizations.

>>12635879
>its another tomokofag thread

>>12637433
What's modern math?

>>12635879
Math isn't a science by definition. A science obeys the scientific method and requires experimentation, you can't experiment in maths.
Maths degrees are actually considered arts degrees in a lot of places (in a BA instead of BSc sense, not an english degree sense)

>>12637433
I dunno man. Modern physics uses a lot of crazy maths and that's where we're gonna get some of the dopest shit in the near future

>>12635879
I'd say they're closer to linguists than anything. Math is essentially a language for quantifying the world around us. There are a lot of paralleles between the two. Math is definitely not a science though, anyone saying otherwise is a retarded copester

>>12635879
Pseudo scientists.

Mathematicians do not discover anything or try to understand any phenomenas, neither they construct anything useful as engineers do. In fact they just try to invent more and more complicated ways to describe things which are obvious to everyone. Why they do it? Because they operate within and work on an artificial framework and afraid to let their minds to break out of established mathematical concepts to see the ground truth.

>>12635879
more as most elevated lords of pure thought, masters of the eternal, kings of truth, counts of deduction, protectors of the sublime.

>>12639709
Any bullshit made up in 20th century and beyond

>>12637433
what is the domain of the real world?

>>12635879
>I'd classify them as useless fags
Found the engineer

>>12635965
Tomoko is always sexy.

>>12635879
>math-illiterates coping this much

>>12635977
> they don't like this colour here or that shape there so they change or remove it
Not really true. An artist's canvas must be balanced in the same way that a maths equation is balanced.

>>12636012
No. Science is a branch of philosophy. So all scientists are philosophers, but not all philosophers are scientists.

>>12637509
>There aren't any further useful 'discoveries' in math
Famous last words.

>>12635879
populations of people I feel have the same percentage of useful individuals out of the whole past a certain point of already "useful" characteristics. Mathematicians fall into this category and about 1/10 of them are actually useful. Just my schizophrenic opinion.

>>12635977
Artists cannot decide what is and isn't beautiful. An artist, judged by their ability to capture beauty, is a bad artist if they create something ugly.

>>12641194
There's plenty of art that is intentionally ugly. The idea that beauty is the only quality worth capturing in art is wrong. The world is not all beautiful, there is unnecessary suffering, widespread injustice, death and disease are endemic and capriciously doled out by the fates. Of course, there's lots of beauty in the world too, and it can make a brilliant subject for art, but there's lots of art interested in capturing the ugliness in the world, in portraying those ugly but important truths. An ugly truth can make a much better artwork than a beautiful fiction.

>>12639783
Based and tardpilled. Have you even met a mathematician?

>>12637509
The most stupid take in this thread. Congrats, anon

Of course they are priests

People who really engage in either art (that is, creation of beautiful things) or science (that is, statistically sound empriical argumentation) professionally are extremely rare in current times, so to tell which category a person falls into we're basically reduced to looking at labels

Mathematicians hang out a lot with physicists and chemists, but rarely with artists. Mathematicians have degrees in science, not in art. I think that settles it.

>>12644879
> Mathematicians hang out a lot with physicists and chemists
More to do with shared vocabulary and applications than anything else. Plenty of mathematicians are interested in art, and any pure math professor can tell you about their infatuation with the beauty of math.
> Mathematicians have degrees in science, not in art.
In many places its actually BA not BS (not that it matters either way)