/sci/ - Science & Math

math is math. philosophy? lol

>>12745339
The only thing math and philosophy share is predicate logoc

math is a subset of cs and cs is a subset of math.
since we concluded that cs is not a science, we can conclude that math is not a science.

>>12745368
>math is a subset of cs and cs is a subset of math
You realize that you just said cs = math, right?

>>12745368
>math is a subset of cs and cs is a subset of math
but math != cs, anon

>>12745339
Mathematics is language

>>12745372
>assuming extensionality

>>12745372
Cs superscedes math on all levels where math is the distilled information in patterns, cs is the computation/convolution of patterns themselves.

>>12745386
you are very myopic, my friend

>>12745386
>Cs supercedes math on all things patterns
>cs is the computation of patternes
>you need to have patterns first in order to compute them

>>12745386
It is more appropriate to say that CS is an outgrowth from the foundations of mathematics.

>>12745392
Do you rather have data or code?

>>12745372
>>12745386
>>12745392
>>12745395

No CS and Math are EXACTLY the same things. CS is a branch of math that is the entire tree of mathematics.

They describe the same thing in different ways.

P=NP is a rephrasing of Godel's incompleteness theorem. The Halting Problem is a specific case of the incompleteness theorem.

>>12745405
>CS and Math are EXACTLY the same things
if this were true, then Hilbert would have succeeded with his foundations program

Math = Convolution of Phenomena encoded in patterns

CS = Convolution of patterns to encode phenomena.

Non commutativity is a thing.
Work 2 live != live to work

>>12745409
>if this were true, then Hilbert would have succeeded with his foundations program
That doesn't follow.

>>12745398
I'm saying you need to discover patterns first before you can computerize them

>>12745449
You need a computer (you) before you can discover the patterns to computerize them.
>checkmate

>>12745339
no one cares

>>12745464
>You need a computer (you)
no u

>>12745405
>P=NP is a rephrasing of Godel's incompleteness theorem
Meds, now.

>>12745339
>Do you agree?
No, study epistemology

>>12745339
I agree, and have had this same thought

>>12745339
Everything is a philosophy. Science is just a refined Empiricism which is philosophy.
Mathematics is the science of simplified models.

>>12745339
Science and philosophy are one and the same

>>12745339
> /sci/ - Science & Math
yeah it's not science

>>12746028
I doubt moot would even manage this

>>12745339
Math is a parent set of its own. So its neither science nor philosophy.

Checkmate atheists

>>12745339
Who cares? It works.

math is a tool that only the base and unclean perform. it hurts the mind and damages the temperament if done in excess. the philosopher concerns himself with true and false, and if pressed, 1 and 0, he knows that calculating is for lesser beings and machines.
math may not be philosophy, but to call it science is too good to the cockroaches that practice it.

>>12745339
Mash is language, science is philosophy

>>12746075
Why is there a small group of anons that absolute seethe at pure math?
Mathematicians are superior to you, faggot. Stop seething about it.

>>12746082
quiet, slave. be more like my humble calculator, obedient when needed and silent when at rest.

>>12746090
Mathematicians don't perform computations they prove theorems.
You are not tough or powerful or cool. Stop seething about it.

>>12746099
They proof theorems in their own arcane language with minimal revision. Within the 40 years of CS we had countless different program langs, architectures etc

Who do you think will win evolutionary speaking.

Kinda funny how math is structured like a immuteable blockchain with gatekeepers around every corner in the name of rigor.

Its being protected from 'dangerous ideas"

You cant proof anything if you can create new axioms, read agrippas trilemma,

Singularities are supposed to be... single

>>12745339
It's metaphysics

>>12745339
objectively correct.
science is defined by the scientific method.
what experimentation is there in mathematics?
mathematics is a way of describing perceived reality and it is inherently philosophical in nature.
mathematicians get over this because they are either comfortable with or ignorant of the myriad assumptions necessary to accept mathematics as objective fact.

>>12745405
cs is to math what engineering is to physics

Mathematics is neither a philosophy nor a science. It is a field of logic, and is more accurately Philosophy's brother.

>>12745994
>Science is just a refined Empiricism which is philosophy.
this, science is the art of quantifying reality.
before this can be done the fundamental assumption must be made that reality is quantifiable.
mathematics makes a similar albeit much smaller leap by first assuming that numbers exist

>>12745339
philosophy means inductive arguments. math is purely deductive. this is something that retards say to sound smart and "philosophers" say to delude themselves into thinking their field matters anymore.

>>12746326
>cs is to math what engineering is to physics
Yes. They're both retarded cousins of their more based fields.

>>12746153
this is like arguing that engineering is more useful than physics.
while objectively true, it does not change the fact that engineering is the product of physics.
the same is true of cs

>>12745405
>P=NP is a rephrasing of Godel's incompleteness theorem
being this retarded

>>12746332
Retard take. I can do the same shit, watch: everything is the word of God. Before you can make philosophical queries, you need God to have approved it. Without God there is no Philosophy. What's your response?

>>12746342

The first fireplace or stone tool was a act of engineering. Our monkey ancestors were not coming up with theories of fire or rocks. Therefor engineering breeds physics. Without scientific experiments which require engineering you wouldnt really have shit.

Science is philosophy. Mathematics is a tool. Mathematics is also philosophy though because it's an abstract tool.

Engineering > Theory of Physics > Engineering

Automata > Math > Automata

>>12746331
>the venn diagram schizo is back

>>12746376
What's schizo about it? I'm open to changes in it.

>>12746379
>I'm open to changes in it.
No, you aren't
I've seen your threads on the archive. You chimp out about the placement of psychology. It seems you are butthurt about being schizo and so created this whole chart to discredit psychology.
All in all:
You are a coping schizo

>>12746385
Check the original thread and you'll see changed it and was open to suggestions (e.g. theology as a logic+phenomenology, despite being a staunch atheist). I get you're triggered at psychology not being a science, but that's a you-problem.

>>12746389
>I get you're triggered at psychology not being a science, but that's a you-problem.
Ahh here comes the projection of insecurities
>n-n-NOOOO! PSYCHOLOGY IS NOT A SCIENCE. C-COPE HARDER YOU TRIGGERED PSYCHOLOGY LOVER
I'm just waiting for your chimp out

>>12746411
How is psychology a science if it can't even make predictions, and its studies barely replicate? What are its fundamental models they use to predict and quantify phenomena? Biology uses evolution, chemistry uses periodic table, physics uses standard model of Cosmology/Particle Physics. >>12746385
This looks far more projective than this
>>12746389

>>12746417
300iqPsychology is a type of game theory.

>>12745405
People like you give this view a bad name.
>>12745409
>>12745542
>>12746343
P vs. NP is a rephrasing of the expressibility of first order logic, asking whether or not second order languages can express languages that first order logic equipped with a least fixed point combinator cannot. The connections between modern CS and classical mathematics are deep and reach from the foundations to more trendy fields, but these discussions are always ruined by schizoposting, much like how the connection between CS and physics (good amount of work on this by studying Ising model) is fairly deep but needs to be studied further, but nobody thinks it's cool because Stephen Wolfram shits up the discussion by talking about muh fractals and muh emergence from simple algorithms.
>>12746326
Sort of? It's closer to say that CS is what the constructivist pulls out when he's fighting a finitist, ie. he's trying to convince the finitist that we can make sense of infinite structures in "clear, tangible" terms. if that makes sense. Engineering is a different tradition of the physicist applying models to making devices and doing tasks, while CS is somewhere in the middle of being a pure study and being an abstract form of engineering (whose standards will likely mature since people in CS are either completely genius or dumb as a sack of bricks - no in-between)

>>12746350
you seem to be taking this personally

>>12746462
My point is that if you assume philosophy is the fabric of all knowledge, it will always be proven right a la metaphysics. It can never be rebuked since all rebukes necessarily fall under metaphysics, and therefore it's a self-proving claim that philosophy underpins all of knowledge. But it's a problem because it all hinges on that one fundamental, self-referential assumption for no good reason. Religious arguments have the exact same logical structure: assume a deity exists and all of reality follows. All rebukes can be handled by religiously shifting the deity's domain. So you're metaphysical claims are, fundamentally, equivalent to religious claims. I'm inclined to reject them as nonsense.

>>12746474
based

>>12745339
Yes. Also science is philosophy. The scientific method is empirical while the mathematical method is strictly rational and more comparible to metaphysics than natural science.