/sci/ - Science & Math

your stupidity create monsters, nothing you say is real

>>14848652
What intelligence would respect such poorly formatted information let alone the low quality words chosen? Are you simply numbers talking or humans that select words from a known memory list of words.

>>14848647
>Inb4 the pile on from elitists who fault someone for trying to learn math.
As you post on a board filled with math elitists. You would swat a hornets nest then curse the hornets for retaliating.

>>14848647
>Every time I look at anything in a math book they are going on and on and on describing something that is self evident or could be stated in half a line.
Is your pic an example of this?
If so, what is self evident and what can be stated in half a line?

>>14848647
it is you who are too stupid to realize the importance of the reals

You dumbass. They're called definitions. You need to define things so you can access more complex truths. Maths books define a lot of simple things and then often bring them all together at the end in the form of a theorem. If you actually bother to persevere with a maths book instead of expecting everything to be dumped in your lap in one chapter you might have never needed to make this post.

All true statements are either true by definition or are false. If something is true, it either explicitly repeats its definition (or a part thereof), or it indirectly restates it. If a statement is not connected to (or contradicts) the definition of the concept that is being referred to, it is false.
No exceptions.

>>14848663
Him knowing their next move before they itch to pounce as so is the smoking of the hive, it takes the wind out of their sails somewhat.

>>14848665
>If so, what is self evident and what can be stated in half a line?

Well, it seems like everything on this page could be states as, 'Alpha, beta, and gamma can be variables for numbers and do addition & multiplication you learned in 3rd grade'.
How's that?

>>14848854
3rd grade arithmetic is the poster child of the field axioms. the axioms themselves aren't meant to be obvious or proven, they are just a set of things you assume to be true. OPs image is formalizing what is meant exactly by 3rd grade arithmetic in a very concise way.
mathematicians figured out to capture all of 3rd grade arithmetic you need to assume only a small handful of statements are true, and everything else follows. enumerating those properties and figuring out what a good representation of those rules are is extremely non-trivial.
for instance, from your description, can you prove that 1 != 0?

>>14848675
>All true statements are either true by definition or are false. If something is true, it either explicitly repeats its definition (or a part thereof), or it indirectly restates it.

Based and analytic-statement pilled.

>>14848873
>from your description, can you prove that 1 != 0?

OP newfag here again...
A three year old knows this when they learn to count.
I think my trouble is I'm not seeing any educational material in between obvious and lurching moon rune transformations. I've tried to read a few books and I'm always left wonder why did they even write this? What human takes this fucking shit in and ever gets to anything like solving a convex optimization with it?

>>14848881
>>14848675

>>All true statements are either true by definition or are false. If something is true, it either explicitly repeats its definition (or a part thereof), or it indirectly restates it.

This is like reading 'True is true is true is true is true'.

>>14848982
Read this: https://us.metamath.org/
Math becomes very detailed when seeking absolute rigor. You are yearning for less rigor, while many mathematics students do the (equally wrong) opposite, yearning for more rigor. It is a very difficult balance to attain

>>14848647
the answer you seek for has a name.
Nicolas Bourbaki.

I recommend you learn the historical motivation for the new mathematics you intend to learn. Usually that clarifies things, and it involves less rigour.

Read Springer faggot

>>14849120
This
Bourbaki the piece(es) of shit
Add Maths to the list of things ruined by the fucking French
When are we going to have a serious attempt to resurect the Soviet school of math?

>>14848982
have you ever heard about the finite field of 2 elements? algebraically it acts just like 3rd grade arithmetic, however the only numbers are 0 and 1. once you codify the pattern, you can start to find the same pattern in lots of places and then any results that follow from the pattern instantly apply to anything that fits the pattern.

>>14848982
>A three year old knows this when they learn to count
Doesnt matter, the only things you assume are what the author explicitly denotes as axioms. Everything else must be proven no matter how obvious.
Regarding why you're seeing 3rd grade math in the first place is because most undergrad books like to develop the material from the very start of its foundations

>>14848982
Medic here. It's a formality. Honestly they don't write math books with pedagogics in mind. Mathfags are autistic and think of the field not as a tool but some sort of art form or a puzzle.

As others said they are called definitions. They are trivial, but sometimes they are key to making another generalization (which since the author is autistic he doesn't explain the jump from common thought to the special kind of thinking needed to understand the thing).

Take for example the properties of multiplication. They tell you in a general way that number a(b) is commutable and such nonsense. They don't explicitly say a is a fraction and b is another fraction and they can cancel out. Learning how to abstractize the shitty definitions is the key to understand math.

It pisses me off as well but this is how these people are and there are not many alternatives, much less the more specialized it gets.