/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14752122
You sound mentally retarded.

>>14752122
Philosophy is the foundation of mathematics, a philosopher is basically a dad to a mathematician.

>>14752122
Does it matter? Philosophers have been as present in my life as trannies, which is to say I've probably briefly seen them like 30 times in my whole life.

>>14752133
>Philosophers have been as present in my life as trannies
So you're telling me your entire mental framework is derived from troonery?

>>14752133
>Does it matter? Philosophers have been as present in my life as trannies, which is to say I've probably briefly seen them like 30 times in my whole life.
you’re lucky, I used to live in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan and grooms were walking around all the time. Granted, that area is kinda the Mecca of trannies, but they were scary. The ones who do drag queen story hour are the *best* trannies, it gets even worse from there

>>14752122
Philosophers invented science. You infidels who reject philosophy are nothing but usurpers. Time will deal with you

>>14752133
>Philosophers have been as present in my life as trannies
Same. They're living rent free in my head. I'm constantly thinking and posting about them on 4chan.

>>14752131
Math and philosophy are polar opposites.

Math
>objective
>generates true statements
>deductively proves their truth

Philosophy
>subjective
>baseless opinions
>no justification other than "trust me bro, I'm an old white man"

>>14752135
My point being that trannies and philosophers live rent free in /sci/anons heads >>14752223
, despite not being very influential outside of bubbles/pockets of thought.

>>14752220
Scientists invented science while philosophers were too busy playing pointless language games.

>>14752230
All you're spouting is a heavily dumbed-down take of shit-tier modern
philosophy.

>>14752238
Non-modern philosophy is no better. Maybe Descartes said some semi-insightful things, but overall philosophy is trivial af. I've never seen a philosophical argument I didn't think about as a kid on my own already. The closest to a great thinker in philosophy is Chris Langan who solved a lot of metaphysics.

>>14752261
See >>14752238. You are just sharting out dumbed-down modern philosophy.

>>14752261
I only read a philosphy book cover to cover once because i was forced in one of these broad-formation courses in university. Book basically said you need to have a good life and let others have good lives too. A book about ethics.

>>14752262
Not that anon, but the reason modern "philosophy" seems dumbed down to you is that the word philosophy used to encompass all forms of knowledge. Gradually, the constructive forms of knowledge were built up to the point that it made sense to treat those useful branches of philosophy as specializations in and of themselves. All that is left today as pure "philosophy" is sophism, failure, and banality, which is why its reputation as a form of knowledge is the lowest of the low.

philosophy is theory, science is proof, engineering is practice

>>14752290
See >>14752238

>>14752317
See >>14752290

Modern philosophy centers around cognition and ideas in that vein.

>>14752299
>philosophy is theory, science is proof, engineering is practice
yoooo, put this on a t shirt

>>14752464
Modern philosophy centers around transgender, feminism and white privilege.

>>14752490
Okay, that will be $100
The lining will say economics is exploiting other people's work

>>14752506
White privilege is about bullies trying to bully you into a group you're not part of.
Transgenderism is about bullies trying to bully themselves into a group they're not part of.
Feminism is about not wanting bullies to bully you into a group you're not part of.
Feminism (at least classically) is literally the opposite of those other two things.

>>14752552
Feminism is corporations trying to bully women into degeneracy.

>>14752574
What's the link you see between "feminism" and corporations trying to bully women into degeneracy?

>>14752729
Fuck off, white feather girl. Go light your freedom torch and get an abortion.

>>14752230
This nigga thinks philosophy is motivational quotes I'm gonna die lmao

>>14752122
Because writing a bunch of equations or formulas on a chalk board doesn't make you correct or relevant all the time.

>>14752230
If only it were that easy. Math is pretty far from objective, especially because we can't prove everything in a consistent system. That's why people choose different sets of axioms. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

>>14752122
You math losers can't answer the big questions without going the distance in the depth of our understanding in philosophy. Best learn some humility number bitch

>>14752230
>objective
>true
Math is subjective you nigger. Take a philosophy course.

>>14752122
Most engineering can be done entirely without mathematics. Empiricism and observational intuition will get you %90 there. The math is only there to refine a design and keep you from getting sued.

>>14752230
>math
>philosophy
2 blind men and an elephant.

>>14752122
>you get uglier the closer to engineering you get

real philosophers know a good amount of mathematics

>>14752122
from chad, to soijak, to coomer

>>14752122
Math is just a tool. Why do you expect it to be at the top? It would be like tail wagging the dog. Or that's what you want to do?

>>14752122
>probability theory
>math

Top kek

>>14753234
In other words: Mathematicians are the smartest and easily outperform philosotards in their own field.

>>14752519
>The lining will say economics is exploiting other people's work

> mathematics is a subfield of philosophy
i fucking can't. even if that's technically true, the things mathematicians deal with philosophers would never be able to do. It's like saying ketchup is just tomato or chips are equal to the raw potatoes. Mathematics draws on axioms, one they are set everything follows from a logical deduction. Philosophy maintains sound logic but is essentially more loose and subjective in the axioms, what's right or wrong, etc.

>>14753856
Cope. Mathematicians have never been able to recover since bsed schizo Gödel beat them soundly into the ground.

>>14752230
>Philosophy
>>subjective
>>baseless opinions
>>no justification other than "trust me bro, I'm an old white man"

You talk like a highschooler ranting about their mandatory philosophy class, you're talking out of your ass. I hope this is just bait.

>>14752122
Kek
Philosophers gave you math faggots algebra and said have fun with it, I’ve got more important stuff to do
You losers wouldn’t have even found integral calculus on your own if a philosopher didn’t do it for you

>>14753095
Everything that is proven in math is definitely true. Gödel merely says that there might be some statements for which we cannot determine whether they're true.

>>14752131
and a pile of shit is the foundation of a rose

>>14752735
Retard

>>14754233
Why are you getting bent out of shape? Does the truth hurt?

I love how its always pissed off math people that make these threads and never the other way around. Tells a lot about the issue.

>>14753860
>bsed schizo Gödel
Considering he died of starvation when his wife was hospitalized and thus unavailable to taste-test for him, this is somewhat plausible (paranoid delusion expressed as fear of poisoning), but I think the tism is more likely.

>>14753866
>Gödel merely says that there might be some statements for which we cannot determine whether they're true
Not even that, only that we can't determine their truth within a certain restricted context.

Philosophers are parasites claiming credit for science and math even though they contributed nothing to it.

>>14754235
Why are you so mad and retarded all at the same time?

>>14754339
So you're saying you're extremely upset to find out feminism is a bankster/corporate invention?

>>14754341
I'm fascinated to learn more about that. You got mad though and don't have anything left to say about it :^(

>>14754345
I gave you some hints. You were simply too dumb to notice them because you're a cunt that should be gagging on my dick.

>>14754347
Now you're mad, retarded, and also gay. Any other emotions you'd like to add?

>>14754348
See >>14754341

>>14754351
>14754351

>>14754351
>>14754352
Oh boy, the sexual tension between these two.

>>14752230
>Philosophy
>>subjective
You're thinking of social sciences. Look up Epistemology.

>>14754426
See >>14754351

>>14754474
Any recommendations what to read about epistemology? Bullshit like gettier problems are just meaningless language games.

>>14754541
>Bullshit like gettier problems are just meaningless language games.
I don't know if there are epistemology books suitable for someone with an IQ of 85.

>>14754554
IQ of 185 actually. You forgot the first digit. Why do you perpetuate futile and silly pre-Wittgensteinian philosophy? Only people with low verbal IQ do that.

>>14754573
See >>14754554

>>14754590
Alright, I'll assume you don't know shit about epistemology.

>>14754573
>Insecure faggot with 85 IQ starts using big words to save his face
I would mop the floor with you in chess, two digit IQ anon

>>14754609
Chess is a game for NPCs. Even a computer can be good at it. No real intelligence needed.

>>14754640
Only someone who understands chess at a surface level could unironically think this is a good troll and not an immediate oust of own stupidity.

>>14754669
I'm still waiting for your literature recommendations on epistemology, kiddo ;^)

>>14754681
Oh, I am not that anon. I found your bait to be silly. I should have clarified, my bad.

>>14754609
>>14754640
>>14754669
What's the point of chess anyway? Or of any competitive sport? Playing against someone better than me is boring since I can already predict I'll lose. Playing against someone not as good as me is boring as well since I know I'll win. Overall it seems like a waste of time.*

*This conclusion was drawn by my high IQ. High IQ makes people nihilistic and apathetic. Other high IQ bros will understand.

>>14754705
Point of chess is to test your understanding of strategy and risk against an opponent so you can evaluate the outcome and improve your understanding. Additionally, it's addictively fun to engage with other people's minds as it becomes a fight for survival. Once setups break down it's akin to a predator chasing down prey or being the prey fighting to survive. Either way it's an enthralling experience.

>>14754747
Sounds like a cucked substitute activity. If you want to do something with strategy and risk then why not do it in real life where the gains are actually tangible? A board game with a small set of rules seems to be a bad simulation for this purpose.

>>14754757
Because my risk is asymmetric to the payoff. I can play a lot more chess games than you can do real life risk taking.
>A board game with a small set of rules seems to be a bad simulation for this purpose.
Works great for me. Feel free to pursue a different purpose.

>>14754757
That's like saying boxing is cucked because it's a substitute for duels to the death. Also I doubt you do any risk taking activities with your crab bucket loser mentality.

>>14754787
Boxing is cucked af. You're risking a concussion without gaining anything. It doesn't even prepare you for a real fight where someone would just pull a knife or a gun.

>>14754809
The footwork in boxing is similar to one's you'd have in a knife/sword fight. The gain isn't material, it's building experience fighting someone else. Anyways, what have you done that isn't cucked
>captcha:basedfgt

>>14754809
>Boxing is cucked af. You're risking a concussion without gaining anything.
Triumph is a foreign concept for you, huh?

>>14754814
>The footwork in boxing is similar to one's you'd have in a knife/sword fight. The gain isn't material
So effectively you're just learning to dance. You know, there are dedicated dancing courses for this purpose.
>it's building experience fighting someone else.
I already addressed this point. Good luck with your boxing skills against a gun.
>Anyways, what have you done that isn't cucked
Criticizing the government.
>captcha:basedfgt
Why are you lying? The length and the set of allowed characters doesn't match with 4channel's captchas.

>>14754818
I'm experiencing triumph every day when winning debates on /sci/.

>>14754845
>chess is cucked because it's not real life risk taking
>I debate on the internet every day
Thanks for the laugh.

>>14752230
>generates true statements
*generates tautologies

>>14752831
What you have claimed does not logically follow from what the Anon whom you responded to stated. One could, for the sake of giving Anon the benefit of the doubt, argue that philosophers do rely on their readers trusting what they claim, such as Plato's claim that ideas originally come from God and are carried on by the soul during reincarnation, or Immanuel Kant's formulation of universal duty as the only sustainable basis for morality. Although they do engage with counter-claims and possible refutations, they do not prove why what they claim is true, but merely give off the feeling that, because the contrary does not seem to be credible or otherwise easy to accept, then their position must necessarily be more correct than that of others.

>>14753865
Systems of linear equations and various algorithms for calculating roots of equations may be found in Egyptian clay tablets that predate the birth of Thales of Miletus by thousands of years, and were developed independently in China, a country with an extremely pragmatist, anti-philosophical culture that forbade any type of thinking except for plain obedience to one's elders and submission to the state.
Leibniz was originally a lawyer who branched out into theology, philosophy, mathematics, and physics.
Isaac Newton was aware of Aristotelian philosophy, but would have not considered himself a philosopher in the same sense that John Locke and David Hume did.
There are traces of calculus in the works of Archimedes, Descartes, Fermat, Barrow, and many other mathematicians who had been working prior to Leibniz on questions related to areas, volumes, and tangent lines.
In fact, Zeno of Elea's famous three paradoxes probably did more harm to the Western intellectual tradition than they did any good to it by suggesting that a whole cannot be composed of an infinite number of parts.

>>14752220
ah yes, the saducees and pharisees of the temple of science squabbling for power, a tale as old as time.

Philosophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
Mathematics and Engineering are tools of Philosophy, simple as.

>>14752131
Maths is literally older than philosophy. Not only that but 4000 years old maths, aztec maths, Chinese maths, Babylonian maths, antiquity maths, etc all are correct and make sense. Meanwhile some well accepted philosophy from all ages sounds like absolute nonsense and is sometimes absolutely wrong.
Maths is king, don't claim it you pseud troglodytes

>>14752230
I used to think like this but then I learned that a lot of the things we are nowadays calling math were previously under philosophy. But really what does it matter? Good ideas are good ideas and bad ideas are bad.

>>14755873
Reasoning is the why. Your argument attacks logic.

>>14756092
> 4000 years old maths, aztec maths, Chinese maths, Babylonian maths, antiquity maths, etc all are correct and make sense
They all had philosophy and their mathematical thinking was intimately tied to it. You're stunningly ignorant.

>>14755873
In other words, they believe own bullshit.

>>14756087
>Mathematics and Engineering are tools of Philosophy
Then why don't philosophers learn and use these tools? Is it perhaps because every philosopher who knows how to use such tools is defined by their expertise rather than by the generic term "philosopher" which today is nothing but a participation trophy for people who paid for a degree in the arts and sciences but somehow failed to acquire a basic fluency in any useful tool of philosophy?

>>14756734
Looks like you're on the verge of realizing that "philosophy" as a narrow academic disipline is not what intelligent people mean when they talk about the connection between philosophy and science. Push a little harder and maybe you'll break out of your idiot loop.

>>14756734
>Then why don't philosophers learn and use these tools?
So this is a universally quantified claim. It can be disproven by the existence of single philosopher who uses those tools. Now I can easily name a philosopher whose name graces the covers of more Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics than does your name. The question is, when I do, will you admit that you're wrong?

>>14752122
Because all the mathematical foundational laws are philosophical positions which is refined into logical propositions and thus mathematical application.

>>14756746
Why would you assume I'm unfamiliar with the history of philosophy and why would you bother typing out such a banal and meaningless comment? Is it perhaps because you have no better tools at your disposal?

>>14756767
Try rereading the post to find the word that preëmptively discredits your entire line of argument.

>>14756165
Math and philosophy were already separated in ancient cultures. Euclid and Archimedes did math. Plato and Aristotle did philosophy.

>>14756791
If you didn't qualify some all is implied because that's the only other option.

>>14756791
The only single word in your post which could fulfil that role is "perhaps," but it doesn't modify the universally quantified claim in question but rather a subsequent claim.

>>14756805
That's not the issue.

>>14756815
Nope, "today."

>>14756786
So you concede that science sprang out of philosophy and ultimately works to philosophy's ends?

>>14756818
The Cambridge Tract in Mathematics I'm thinking of was published in 2019.

>>14756816
I am on the edge of my seat for the reveal.

>>14756805
Anon did not make a formal statement in first order logic. He wrote a sentence in natural language. Forcefully interpreting the latter as the former is socially inadequate and autistic. It is in fact quite impolite to interrupt a discussion with such an asinine interjection.

>>14756826
lmao it's "le current year"

>>14756819
>So you concede [some rhetorical garbage which was never at issue]
The hallmark of a "philosopher" with no useful tools of philosophy.

>>14756824
The Bible was also published in 2019. And in 2022. Why do you think a publication date is relevant?

>>14756840
I accept your full concession, subhuman vermin. Give me a call when you finish highschool.

>>14756848
I don't believe that the Cambridge University Press reprints their all material on so regular a basis. But regardless, I was obviously referring to the initial publication date.the word "today" doesn't invalidate my argument because there are philosophers alive today who have contributed more to mathematics than you ever will.

>>14756830
Doesn't matter that anon didn't express his position formally the outcome is binary. Additionally, what the fuck makes you think you have control over this space to assume privilege in a discussion on a public forum board. Finally, if it's autistic to impose with an opinion on the subject matter its exponentially more autistic to impose etiquette standards on strangers on the internet Also, I am rude. Fuck yourself, retard

>>14756876
The concept of binary truth is inapplicable outside of formal logic. Opinions, narratives, personal experiences and gender cannot meaningfully be assigned values of true or false. You are guilty of a fundamental categorical mistake, and if you refuse to accept this you're unworthy of calling yourself a philosopher.

>>14756886
>Opinions, narratives, personal experiences and gender
are all irrelevant to the matter at hand. Anon made a statement of fact. The statement was false.

>>14752230
>math
>objective
>75% of shit requires you to use numbers that don't exist

>>14756886
Sure it can. I just applied it. Opinions, narratives, personal experiences and gender where not a subject to that application. I do not see a reason to assign value to your judgment given that I reject the premise of you holding authority in this space a notion your ego can't seem to be able to wrap itself around.

>>14756902
the fact that you cant put it in "apples" or "times you sucked a dick" doesnt mean it isnt real!

>>14756911
No, but then there's the fact that they're called "imaginary" numbers and they stand in contrast to the "real" numbers.

>>14756918
yeah, im talking real in the sense of reality not in the sense of sets of numbers

>>14756918
and they are called that because in the 18th century when they were discovered/invented/whatever they thought they had no real uses. But wow, surprise, all physics work with imaginary numbers

>>14756902
The proof of existence has been presented in the literature. You reject it because mathematical existence is not the same as your subjective metaphysical notion of existence. Therefore it's your individual emotional problem.

>>14756933
>im not talking about
Irrelevant, you're talking about your homoerotic fellatio fantasies and nobody else cares.

>>14756897
How can a fact be false? Are you unaware of the difference between a fact and a logical proposition?

>>14756933
No shit, Sherlock. That doesn't mean we have to autistically pretend we can't understand the pun the other Anon made.

>>14756941
>How can a fact be false?
By possessing factivity yet failing to be true.

>>14756908
>I do not see a reason to assign value to your judgment given that I reject the premise of you holding authority
Peak midwit intellectual immaturity. For a midwit the accuracy of a statement depends solely on the authority of the person who stated it. He constantly needs someone to hold his hand and to tell him what to think.

>>14752122
Pythagoras said that he was inferior to Plato

>>14756944
meant for
>>14756934

>>14756964
I cannot take someone seriously who posts dictionary definitions in an online discussion. Cringe af.

>>14756966
I reject your judgement and challenge the accuracy of your statement with an example of an application of what you claim to be inapplicable, chimp. Once again all you've done is display how much your ego clouds your mind.

>>14756984
>Pythagoras said that he was inferior to Plato
Pythagoras 570-495 BC
Plato 428-347 BC
Sure thing, buddy. I feel inferior to people born 70 years after my death, too.

>>14757007
That's fine, I can take seriously someone who doesn't understand the distinction between fact and truth.

>>14757056
*can't

>>14756984
Plato was a useless deceitful pederast, and so are you.

>>14757056
>>14757059
So you can't take yourself seriously? Good to know. Thanks for confirming my point.

>>14756861
See >>14756861

>>14756866
There are no "philosophers" today who have contributed a single thing to mathematics.

>>14756793
Bertrand Russel

>>14757218
Russell was below mediocre in both fields. Mathematically he is known for nothing more than his midwitted pseudoparadox. Philosophically he produced progressive propaganda about the morality of cuckolding and the usual incoherent "war is good, oh no, war is bad, oh no, war is good but only when it's against people NATO considers bad" bullshit. Everything he did in the so called "analytic philosophy" has been utterly destroyed as pointless language games by his student Wittgenstein. Midwit failure Russell deserves no mention in any history book.

Because a million years ago, sitting on your ass "thinking" was all that could be done so they pretend it's some form of ancient art. It's like dinosaurs coming back to life and claiming they invented airplanes.

>>14752122
The scientists that reject philosophy outright are halfwits and can't be saved. Which accounts for a lot of them, unfortunately.

>>14757250
Philosophers are halfwits and can't be saved. There's less than a handful of philosophers who ever said anything insightful and eternal. All the others are pseud trash.

>your math phd literally says philosophy on it therefore math is really philosophy checkmate heheh
The absolute state of "philosophers" in this thread kek.

This post proves it. Half of /sci/ posters are /lit/izens that have never finished precalc.

>take some word from natural language
>without justification claim that it urgently needs a rigorous formal definition
>make up some shitty definition with obvious flaws
>get told about the flaws
>repeat ad infinitum
>gain no knowledge at all in the process
Are philosocucks just wordcels?

>>14757356
Okay, do math without establishing basic principles. Go.

This schizophrenic anti-philosophy posting is quite obviously inorganic. I wonder what's behind this spam campaign and if it's somehow tied to the inorganic anti-consciousness spam.

>>14757364
Illiterate moron. Math needs rigorous definitions. Natural language doesn't.

>>14757384
Rigorous definitions constructed using what?

>>14757371
On the contrary. The NPCs denying free will and consciousness are the same retards who claim that science was subordinate to philosophy. Only someone who truly wants to investigate the nature of consciousness and free will will inevitably realize the shortcomings of philosophy and the midwittery of the philosophers' writings.

>>14757393
Mindless bot.

>>14757397
>projecting

>>14757402
"Projecting" is "no u" for literal pseud bots. You will never be human.

>>14757390
Using symbols and formal logic.

>>14757408
Which is defined by what?

>>14757406
I don't want to be human. Human would imply mediocrity. I am genius.

>>14757416
Ummm... By symbols and formal logic.

>>14757416
By someone smarter than you.

>>14757421
Retard, how do you know what + means?
>>14757422
Using what?

>>14757424
>how do you know what + means?
Using formal logic.

>>14757427
Which is communicated how? To get ahead on the next wagon of this dipshit train. Symbols forming what?

>>14757424
>Retard, how do you know what + means?
By having attended first grade of elementary school.
>Using what?
Pen and paper.

>>14757430
>Which is communicated how?
Using symbols.

>>14757433
Sick reading comprehension, by the way.
>>14757432
>By having attended first grade of elementary school.
Where what happened?
>Pen and paper.
What you do with this pen and paper?

>>14757430
>Symbols forming what?
Definitions and propositions.

>>14757430
>Symbols forming what?
Formal logic.

>>14757436
>Where what happened?
Where you learn basic math and literacy.
>What you do with this pen and paper?
Writing.

>>14757437
Definitions and propositions are composed of what?
>>14757439
You can't read either?

>>14757443
Go to school, retard. Symbols and formal logic are established by the government, not by language. ;^)

>>14757442
>Where you learn basic math and literacy.
Using what? Also, what did those symbols form when they were put together?
>Writing.
Writing what?

>>14757447
Established how?

>>14757452
Using experts, brainlet.

>>14757455
How did these experts establish this?

>>14757458
They learned it from other experts.

>>14757461
Learned what and how?

>>14757463
>Learned what and how?
To do math. By using their intelligence.

>>14757463
>what
Symbols and formal logic.

>how?
By trusting the experts.

>>14757465
Use their intelligence how?
>>14757468
>Symbols and formal logic.
Symbols that form what?
>By trusting the experts.
Cringe.

>>14757474
>he doesn't trust the experts
So I assumed you invented your own language before defining formal logic and symbols in it. ;^)

>>14757482
Yes I spelled wrong until I learned what was considered right. I still did it my way first to test it.

>>14757364
Learning and advancing the "basic principles" of math is called mathematics, not philosophy. Archaic definitions of philosophy aren't relevant in this context; we're talking about the current definition of philosophy which (as others have well pointed out) is synonymous with arrested development and soulless banality.

>>14757491
So did you invent your own language or did you just pick it up from others who already knew it?

>>14757474
>Use their intelligence how?
To gain intellectual insights, unlike you who wastes the miniscule remainder of what might have resembled your intelligence by posting like a dull spam bot.

>>14757498
Inconsequential to the current shitshow.
Basic principles were established using what?
>>14757499
Answered in the comment you're replying to. Invent first then adapt to experts position to be able to communicate effectively.
>>14757501
>To gain intellectual insights
How?

>>14757506
>Basic principles [of mathematics] were established using what?
Mathematics. That's what we call it today.

>>14757506
>Invent first
So you invented the English language and then just went to school to improve your spelling? Honestly, I don't know who's more subhuman, you or those other vile, innhuman rats arguing with you who also don't understand the relationship between language and mathematics. You all deserve to be shot.

>>14757512
>Basic principles of mathematics were established by mathematics.
Your brain when no philosophy.
>>14757513
No, I spelled like a retard because phonetically the spelling didn't make sense to me the way it was presented in the book i was copying from.

>>14757522
>Your brain when no philosophy.
And yet I'm right, and you're wrong. Funny that.

>>14757535
You're 100 percent wrong, dear dimwitted anon. How do you use something you don't know the rules of?

>>14752230
actual retard
just stop posting

>>14757522
>No
So you learned language from others. Okay. Keep trusting the experts. :^)

>>14757513
The relationship between language and mathematics is entirely trivial. Any discussion of it is a pseudointellectual waste of time and therefore morally wrong.

>>14757553
>The relationship between language and mathematics is entirely trivial
Then explain it.

>>14757552
>le ebin troll
Pretending to be retarded isn't trolling.

>>14757557
You're telling me that mathematics is established by language, and language is established by passively picking up how retarded adults around you talk and then by listening to teachers. That doesn't sound like a very solid basis to me, nigger.

>>14752122
Because they are useless since 1950 and the birth of the modern biology (genetics and bio imagery) and psychology.

>>14757565
Who gives a fuck what sounds solid to you? It's what happens so to attempt to divorce it by calling people who are the best at it in our society cuck wordcels is delusion bordering on mental retardation.

>>14757565
>That doesn't sound like a very solid basis to me, n-word
1. I'm not an n-word.
2. For midwits like you it is indeed not a solid basis. That's why you will intellectually never achieve anything. The missing ingredient in your case is intelligence. Only smart people like me can improve upon empirical knowledge by refining it with superior a priori reasoning.

>>14757546
Questions about the basic principles and rules of mathematics are a subset of mathematics. Your archaic use of language doesn't change that.

>>14757575
>>14757583
This is what true subhumans look like. The sort that refute all "moral" arguments against eugenics.

>>14757585
I am not talking about questions about the basic principles after their conception. I am talking about how were the basic principles established.
Established using what? You can't communicate using math if no one knows what the symbols you're using represent.

>>14757575
"People who are the best at it in our society" are certainly not cuck wordcels who engage in infantile language games. In fact people who do that are the lowest scum and entirely useless to society.

>>14752122
While I think one can have a healthy appreciation for philosophy, most philosophers are eternally coping becuase they do not have the work ethic to complete thousands of mathematical problems to be able to do something actually smart. This comes from someone who became intersted in philosophy when maths became hard in college for the exact same reason, now I know better.

>>14757594
>morality is when I get to kill people I don't like
kek
>>14757596
>engaging in a language game
Guess you're a cuck wordcel who is useless to society, anon. You've diagnosed it yourself. Guess you have to an hero now.

>mfw every single mouth breather ITT lashing out against philosophy is relying on ad hoc, shit-tier philosophical arguments to make their point

>>14757608
Now you're just buttmad.

>>14757641
It's called metaphilosophy, midwit. Even Kant himself criticized philosophy for never solving any problems.

>>14757651
>It's called metaphilosophy
Metaphilosophy is philosophy, mouth breather, not that I'd call your ad hoc sharts metaphilosophy.

>>14757595
>how were the basic principles established. Established using what?
I keep telling you, we call it "mathematics." The history of mathematics, the basic principles of mathematics, the logical foundations of mathematics—all of these are a subset of what we call mathematics. None of it is a subset of what we call philosophy.

>>14757641
No one is lashing out against anything, you silly frog. I'll even agree with you that "ad hoc, shit-tier philosophical arguments" are properly philosophy, unlike the philosophy of math, which is properly math.

>>14757654
I love using philosophical arguments to debunk and disprove the nonsense posted by philosotards. It's the ultimate humiliation for them that someone with no formal education in their field can use their methodology better than they themselves. Shows once again how useless philosophy is.

>unlike the philosophy of math, which is properly math.

>>14757682
>I like to show [imaginary strawman] how smart I am by spouting self-refuting statements
Well done.

If you study mathematics, you can utilize it and form your own ideas, solve your own problems. contribute, etc.

A philosophy major is not a philosopher. They are someone who just studied the ideas of others. Majoring in philosophy is akin to majoring in Art History. That is to say, you have no talent if you study it for a living.

Maybe there are philosophers who did something of note, but you can safely say there are practically no philosophers alive today, and those that do study philosophy are most certainly not philosophers themselves.

>t. ad hoc, shit-tier philosophical argument

>>14757666
You can't define the basic principles of a discipline with the discipline. That's nonsense.
>>14757651
>Now you're just buttmad.
I am rubber and you're glue, loser.

>>14757702
>A philosophy major is not a philosopher. They are someone who just studied the ideas of others.
That's a funny thing to say, considering how your entire mental framework is composed from dumbed-down corruptions of ideas developed by dead philosophers.

>>14757702
Based
>>14757718
Cringe

>>14757702
>Majoring in philosophy is akin to majoring in Art History.
Not even. We organize the history, philosophy, and knowledge of various arts as subsets of those arts, not as subsets of philosophy.

>>14757711
Of course we can. What's nonsense is your claim that the basic principles of a discipline aren't a part of that discipline but rather of an amorphous, all-encompassing, archaic definition of philosophy.

>>14757733
>Of course we can.
Okay, do it.
> What's nonsense is your claim that the basic principles of a discipline aren't a part of that discipline
That's not the claim.
> but rather of an amorphous, all-encompassing, archaic definition of philosophy
Your problem is that you're not actively following the conversation and are battling a strawman of your own creation.
Looking forward to your definitions encompassing math using only math.

>>14757733
>claim that the basic principles of a discipline aren't a part of that discipline but rather of an amorphous, all-encompassing, archaic definition of philosophy.
You're both pretty retarded. The justifications for the basic principles of a discipline usually fall in the intersection between that discipline and philosophy, and so do questions about how said discipline relates to reality. The philosophy of mathematics an intersection of philosophy and methematics.

>>14757753
>Looking forward to your definitions encompassing math using only math
Definitions that encompass math are a subset of mathematics, not of philosophy.

>>14757770
Retard, that's not the conversation.

>>14757769
>philosophy of mathematics an intersection of philosophy and methematics
Wow, do you come from the 19th century, too? What a neat thread we're in, with time-travelers everywhere.

>>14757783
You're mentally ill and poorly educated.

>>14757774
Yes, it is. Sorry you've had so much trouble keeping up.

>>14757787
Good one. Very well-philosophized kek.

>>14757789
You replied to me. Imagine jumping into random conversations to say whatever the fuck you want to. No wonder you're having such a difficulty grasping language you can't even manage to understand A, B dialogue.

>>14757792
What's your mathematical education? Post proof.

>>14757795
Disgusting amnesia you have. Here's the post I replied to.
>Okay, do math without establishing basic principles. Go.
The basic principles of math are a subfield of math, not of philosophy. Your original post was nonsense and none of your subsequent posts have been any better.

>>14757800
What a dumb thing to write.

>>14757821
Oh, so you have none? Hmm...

>>14757826
Good one. Very well-philosophized kek.

>>14757815
>posts words neglects context
If anyone can benefit from a philosophy course you're at the top of that list given that your takeaway from that includes rambling about philosophy when the point I am very clearly making is you can't define basic principles of math without using an established language which is a challenge to the post above the one you're quoting.
>Your original post was nonsense
No, you're just fucking stupid.

>>14757837
>you can't define basic principles of math without using an established language
Langauge and communication aren't subsets of philosophy, either. How many times must your archaic definition of philosophy be called out and rejected before you come to terms with how depressingly stupid whatever "clever" point you think you're making really is?

>>14757854
You're every bit as retarded as he is.

>>14757718
>>14757725
You will never be a philosopher.

>>14757864
Good one.

>>14757878
I don't care. All I'm pointing out is that at least people who study philosophy know where "their" hot takes actually come from. You are doomed to regurgitate dumb down versions of yesterday's takes.

>>14757854
I am challenging the notion that the process described in the above post is a waste of time by illustrating that language is used in defining basic principles of math. Without philosophy you'd have to invent philosophy to rigorously define mathematic terms using language. You're the one conflating ideas in some troglodyte attempt to elevate math above the fray of rigorous language definitions because of some inner puritan notion you hold in your mind.

>>14757878
You'll never be a forensic analyst, those not being the same poster and all.

>>14757892
>troglodyte attempt to elevate math above the fray of rigorous language definitions because of some inner puritan notion
Kek what the hell, are you okay?
>Without philosophy you'd have to invent philosophy to rigorously define mathematic terms using language
The branches of knowledge we continue to organize under "philosophy" today have absolutely nothing to do with "rigorously defin[ing] mathematic terms" or with "using language." Note how it's impossible to make your point without appealing to archaic definitions and hierarchies.

>>14757884
>All I'm pointing out is that at least people who study philosophy know where "their" hot takes actually come from
They don't. They know who an idea is attributed to.

>>14757894
They don't have to be the same poster, no one with a philosophy degree will ever accomplish anything of note, or even utilize what they learned for anything of use.

>>14757931
>They don't. They know who an idea is attributed to.
You sound like a literal clinical moron. Anyway, my point stands regardless of your preprogrammed responses and there's no point talkign to overt nonhumans like you.

>>14756092
>Not only that but 4000 years old maths, aztec maths, Chinese maths, Babylonian maths, antiquity maths, etc all are correct and make sense
No

>>14756936
>The proof of existence has been presented in the literature.
literature maybe, but not math itself lol.

>You reject it because mathematical existence is not the same as your subjective metaphysical notion of existence
There is nothing "objective" about using a language to describe the actual "objects" worth deeming "objective". You're saying a description is an actual thing/cause/some kind of reality when it's just a fucking way of describing something else.

>Therefore it's your individual emotional problem.
Quantify this without using an expression.

>>14756984
>Pythagoras was a time traveler

>>14757364
They can't even establish basic principles using math alone.

>>14757447
>Symbols and formal logic are established by the government, not by language. ;^)
Professional retard in the thread. Or are you just a book learned moron ahead of the curve and understand that it's only force and psychosis that makes you "right"?

>>14757461
>>14757468
>>14757482
>Just trust the experts

Yeah and when they seethe hard enough at being unable to explain themselves, then the force comes in.

>>14757512
>Math is just circular logic
It's a language

>>14757931
>no one with a philosophy degree will ever accomplish anything of note, or even utilize what they learned for anything of use.
They'll be the ones prescribing mathematicians with adderall and anti-depressants to deal with their irreconcilable world of bean counting.

>>14757946
>It's a language
The language and symbols of math are also a subset of math and are taught in math curricula by math teachers who are departmentalized as math.

>look at me, I read outdated texts by some old white men which were considered intellectually influential in the pre-modern times
>this somehow makes me smarter than all modern scientists and mathematicians whose works I don't understand
>and I'm gonna be an obnoxious dick about it
Why are philosoplebs such insufferable larpers?

>>14757923
>Kek what the hell, are you okay?
Call them like I see them.
>today
We're not defining basic principles of math today. This is a non sequitur in regards to the initial point being made.
>Note how it's impossible to make your point without appealing to archaic definitions and hierarchies
No shit, because that's the core of the point I am making. You need language to define basic principles of math therefore it's retarded to claim that people who rigorously evaluate language are useless and don't contribute to knowledge.
>>14757946
>They can't even establish basic principles using math alone.
True and based

>>14757884
>All I'm pointing out is that at least people who study philosophy know where "their" hot takes actually come from.
Which makes them historians. Little accurate describers, not philosophers. Historiographers are more trustworthy because I can get an idea of just how butthurt the historian was at the time of writing his propaganda riddled drivel.

>You are doomed to regurgitate dumb down versions of yesterday's takes.
This happens when a historian relies on their emotions/zeitgeist to describe instead of actually practicing what they preach. As if anything they say is actual new...or that we actually learn from it anyway? No they simply accurately describe so that people in the future can get some bright ideas to try out. Then the Historiographers come along to blow them the fuck out of the water rinse-repeat. It's why I don't read Academic translations of platonic works. None of these academics are platonists. They cannot distinguish the difference between the connotation/denotation of the words being said because they simply just translate the denotation, the primary meaning of the words being spoken.

>>14757971
>The language and symbols of math are also a subset of math and are taught in math curricula by math teachers who are departmentalized as math.
Math was originally the "language of quantification" which is why there was initially no number for "0" (because it's not a fucking quantity). You can call your symbolism/numerology/expression abuse "quantity", that doesn't make it quantified...nor really math.

>but authority said
And this gives them power over me? You're going to need a gun, not a notepad and paper. If it were actually the days of Pythagoras these people would have been drowned decades ago for being unable to explain their shit.

>>14753692
>Math is just a tool

>>14758023
>Which makes them historians
You can call it what you like, but no matter how you twist it, being an ignorant and brainwashed mongoloid isn't going to make you better than people with knowledge of philosophy.

>>14752122
kino image btw

>>14753229
But math guy is the least attractive one

>>14752230
This but unironically.
Math finds statements which are true, there's nothing but equivalent statements, necessities and sufficiencies.

Philosophy (Metaphysics) rambles about how Math and the observable world doesn't necessarily fit together, they are the incels of all disciplines. Engineers at least focus on the belief that reality works a certain way to get the best out of it. Physicists believe in some stability to the world too, so that the results and interpretations they make out of the most elemental observations of reality continue to hold in the future. They might not hold, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Philosophy of moral matters when simple enough is cool, like Nietzsche.

>>14758041
>You can call it what you like, but no matter how you twist it, being an ignorant and brainwashed mongoloid isn't going to make you better than people with knowledge of philosophy.

Cool it with the antisemitism.

>>14757988
>people who rigorously evaluate language
That isn't organized under philosophy either, but variously under linguistics, logic, phonetics, and so on. The only study of language that is still organized under philosophy is the study of unrigorous language that isn't sufficiently esthetic to qualify as poetry. Goodman's grue and bleen, for example.

>>14752122
>Why do philosophers try to hijack math and science?
inferiority complex. Most people who get into phylosophy are midwits who studied a humanitarian subject and then pretended to have scientific authority because they feel smarter than they are.
They have never read a scientific paper in their lives

>>14758103
I see you're simply too busy jerking off perceived hierarchies to grasp the point I am making. If we can't agree that a philosopher rigorously evaluates language there is no common ground in this conversation.

>>14758227
>a philosopher rigorously evaluates language
Nope, your archaic definition is obsolete.

>>14758239
Strongly disagree.

>>14752122
Nothing better than sharing realities with intelligent people. There's no point sharing with schizophrenics, might as well just talk to your cat if your conversation partner is sub 110 IQ.

>>14757212
Melvin Fitting

>>14758586
not a philosopher, math phd

>>14758631
Descartes was a lawyer. Noam Chomsky's PhD was in linguistics. Fitting is a professor emeritus of philosophy.

Where's the dividing line for you? Is it the PhD thesis? If a guy has a master's in mathematics and a PhD in philosophy (Carnegie Mellon runs that exact program) can he be a philosopher? Or does it depend on whether he published anything relevant to math?

>>14753865
You're a fucking idiot.

Pragmatics beats math and philosophy any day.

>>14752230
LOL

>>14754251
But anon every context is restricted in some way.

>>14756734
>Then why don't philosophers learn and use these tools?
When Natural Philosophy became Science things went down hill for the relations between the learned fields.

>>14758708
It's not my dividing line, it is what it is. It's a natural artefact of specialization and the accretion of knowledge. People who study math but not philosophy are equipped to contribute to the philosophy of math. People who study philosophy but not math aren't.