/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14746826
set theory is used by physicists. When they say that ''the mass is 10 kg'' they literally believe that there is a number 10 floating in space and somehow giving you the answer on your measuring device..

Now, what framework for numbers ? it is set theory, where numbers are encoded as sets.

Since physicists believe that the mathematical inferences describe the world, when the inferences lead to quantified/numeric facts, they equally believe that the axioms of the set theory is true.
The first axiom of set theory is ''there exists a set''. so physicists believe that there is some set floating around.

>>14746826
>>14746828
they are bots right? I don't understand why they repeat the same thread with the same comment

>>14746828
>When they say that ''the mass is 10 kg'' they literally believe that there is a number 10 floating in space and somehow giving you the answer on your measuring device..
this is a joke, right

>>14746835
schizo

>>14746828
Physicists use topology, Analysis, Algebra, Differential Geometry, probability theory, etc. and all their offshoots l like calculus, Differential equations, elementary algebra, Linear algebra. Set theory is the rigorous foundation for all of this.

>>14746826
Sets (and the structures they've inspired to rectify the limitations of sets) are basic ideas and language used to formulate math rigorously. You would be hard pressed to find practical papers which make no mention of a set when establishing their results.

I don't think you could have any of classical analysis or functional analysis without first having a good, nontrivial understanding of analysis. Same goes for lie theory or representation theory, both very practical branches of algebra.

>>14746826
>When is this shit actually used in the real world?
It isn't. It's essentially a secret language some people learn so they can feel superior. You will never need ANY of what's written on that board - unless you want a job teaching/lecturing in mathematics.

>>14746861
based

>>14746826
Learning none of that is a burden to you, it can only help you have better reasoning. Those are but the basic arguments of the foundations in Mathematics

>>14746826
>proving that adding 1 to an odd number makes an even number for all odd numbers
this is used all the time in the real world.

>>14746828
When is a 425 lbs bench press used? You aren't doing it for direct application at that point, you're doing it for the athleticism it cultivates. Same is true with math at a certain point. You eventually need to stop concerning yourself with application. The inapplicable stuff makes you more fit for creatively applying the applicable stuff.

>>14746875
>this is used all the time in the real world.
I can prove it in like one line of code without any of that shit. (No, you don't actually need 64 bit integers).

>>14746828
>physics
>real world

>>14747015
Only because someone made a library with modular arithmetic for you to import lul.

>>14747125
Bullshit. Watch this:

String s = n.toString();
char digit = s[s.length() - 1];
if(digit == '1' || digit == '3' || digit == '5' || digit == '7' || digit == '9') {
// odd
}else{
// even
}

>>14747165
you've defined how odd and even numbers based on the last digit in it's decimal, but you haven't shown that any odd number +1 is an even number for all odd numbers and that this forms the entire set of even numbers.

>>14747174
I don't need any modular arithmetic. Now that I know how to check if they're odd or even, I can just iterate over every single integer. lurn2code, mathnigger.

>>14747178
why use an infinite computation when you have a finite proof

>>14747179
>why use an infinite computation
The finitists are right. I've proven it. Using my computer. By iterating over all of the integers.

>>14747165
This is sufficient proof for me, but it's not a 1 liner.

I can do it easier.

For any integer, divide that shit in half. Envision it as made of n blocks in two rows.

If it's odd, one row will be longer than the other. If it's even they will be the same.

Adding any odd to an odd makes an even because the nubs can slide together. A kid with blocks can prove this.

>>14747298
this

>>14746835
Server side most likely for years now
It’s a mix
Some people have programmed client side bots that automatically complete the captcha
Then you have people who just recreate the same threads because if they get a lot of replies it’s a dopamine hit

The janitors don’t care and probably recreate high reply threads for the same psychological reason

Also people do it to just mess with people never forget that it’s trolling thing

Do an experiment, pick one high reply thread from a day then 24 hours later just repost it

Also (duh) people reply the same

>>14746828
>>14746835
>they are bots right?
No idea but that post made me kek

>>14746826
Never, it just gives you a language to talk about the math youre doing rigorously. If your equations agree with experiment you don't have to go that deep to check. A great example of this is Diracs attempt at deriving the Dirac Hamiltonian, he turns a 16 variable set into a 8 variable set of 4 complex numbers, which is mathematically gibberish but we go along with it because my professor said he will fail me if I don't.

>>14746828
Unpopular idea: there must be something floating around, the laws of physics can't just exist wheres theres literally nothing

>>14746826
>When is this shit actually used in the real world?
Only when you're enchanting your golems.

>>14746826
set theory?
never
but if you want to create models of things in the real world you may need math, and if you want rigorous math, you need set theory
plus as the other posters have said you can study these abstract structures and consequently be able to think about abstract things more easily where there's no pesky (((reality))) to get in your way

>>14748977
I used to remember the days when science was bound by """"reality"""", terrible times...dangerous right-wingers like Richard Feynman would be allowed to say bigoted things such as “If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong" and would be given platform and tenures in prestigious institution. I'm glad we have overcome such adversity in the last few decades and made the sciences more abstract and inclusive.

>>14746828
>When they say that ''the mass is 10 kg'' they literally believe that there is a number 10 floating in space and somehow giving you the answer on your measuring device..
Further proof Platonists are retarded schizos.

>>14746826
where do you think you live? in fantasy world? the moment you write those things you're using them

>>14746826
they are trying to properly substantiate and explain chaos of the entire universe slowly but 'surely'

>>14746826
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6m3q058HZ8

>>14750030
making things more abstract is harder tho

>>14748698
every time i see this gif I think "lbs doesn't have two ls in it" then I realize "it's lbs and the l and b are very thin and long"

>>14746826
topology and abstract algebra are used in most modernt theories of quantum gravity (strin theory, QFT...) and probability theory is basically all QM.

Topology and non-euclidean geometry is used for GR.

>>14750833
woosh

I wanted to repost OP's question with a picture of sex education, but unfortunately searching for pictures of sex education only yields this retarded Netflix series as a result.

>>14746826
>actually used
...by smart people, i.e. not you.

>>14750945
>probability theory is basically all QM
Really? I thought QM is a set of heuristics stated in the mathematics of probability.

>>14746875
Why would you need to prove it? It's obvious. It would be like proving that grass is green.

>>14753781
>not using blackboard I and E
heh what a [math]\mathbb{NIGGER}[/math]

>>14753813
mh...
>[math]\mathbb{TEST}[/math]

>>14753820
oh, fun

>>14746826
Hundreds of years in the future. Math is detached like that.

>>14752275
do it. If you dont i will

>>14746826
>When is this shit actually used in the real world?

>>14750933
>every time i see this gif I think "lbs doesn't have two ls in it" then I realize "it's lbs and the l and b are very thin and long"

You have clearly demonstrated your autism using only one sentence.
Congratulations?

>>14746849
When was classical analysis developed?
When was functional analysis first developed? What about lie theory?
And when was modern set theory developed, rectifying the problems of naive sets?
Anon, I...

>>14746826
Why study math if you care about the real world? Other than that, there's nothing more useful than having trained your mind for precise thinking and bulletproof argument.

>>14746826
The image you posted is a deliberately obvious proof just to show the kind of logic you use to solve set problems. It's useless, sure, but it's a teaching tool.

>>14746826

A lot to take in.

>>14756489
>>14746826
hULLO I'm m00th dooktor bahb todah we're going to tahlk aboot cyclah-tom-ic pahl-uh-nomials