/sci/ - Science & Math

Maths isn't something that can be created. it is objectively true.
If you can find new ways of thinking about it that are still valid, then go right ahead.

You can do whatever you want, just be warned that whatever you think up has likely been done before and is referred to by a different name.

>discover my own math
fix'd

Probably because you're no Isaac Newton. If you come up with a new technique that is useful, people will use it.

You need a license from the Department of Inquisition for that.

>>3216122
>He thinks maths aren't a creation of human mind

>>3217258
Be that as it may, you would still be expected to determine valid 'illusory' substitutes to our own 'illusory' mandates if you hope to be taken seriously. Just trying to get with you on your level with this, no mean intended

>>3216155
>create my own math
re-fixed

you can if you want to, but its hard to make something non trivial.

>>3216115
Take your beliefs, make them into symbolic notation.
Redefine terms.
Assess the world and find things that are self-evident to you. Create your own axioms. Derive conclusions based on these axioms.
Making your own math is fun and not challenging at all.

Fun example: Redefine prime numbers to mean: "All natural numbers that are not divisible by more than two distinct natural numbers."

Hint: This makes 1 effectively prime.

Can you prove Goldbach's Conjecture with this convention?

>>3217295
As you want. Sorry to say that, but maths aren't real. It is not the language of the universe, it is a very efficient tool to observe and build models. Maths on themselves are a beautiful logic structure, but if you want to give them some meaning, you have to go into physics. But physics is only about approximation, the math will never perfectly fit with reality.

>>3217258
>maths
>bonafide retard

>>3216122
no
>>3217319
yes

>I'mhelping.jpg

>>3217334
>xenophobe

>>3217403

Other cultures are fine..just not the culture of Britfags.

Just make sure whatever you come up with is logically consistent or else you end up like this hippie 'tard

>>3217333
Maths isn't real because it hasn't been extended to include all variables to describe physics.

When you throw a ball at a 45 degree angle at 30 km/h, physics (at a derivative of maths) describes that motion in the absence of the totality of all other given objects that have bearing on that balls motion (e.g. the gravity and forces exerted by ALL OTHER FORMS OF MATTER EXISTING IN THE UNIVERSE). 'Maths' can be used to describe the ball's motion given this infinitude of other factors, but for simpletons, shorthand "math" will suffice.
The mathematics, the REAL mathematics, that would (and should) be used to describe the universe, would be as infinitesimal and infinite as the universe itself. Don't dismiss a system just because you CHOSE to give up on it.

Once you learned all the math that came before then you can start making up new stuff. Newton admitted he "stood on the shoulders of giants"

>>3217520
I'm not saying you're wrong. That's totally correct. But I still think there's some value in fucking around on your own for a bit in the absence of knowledge of things that have already been discovered.

>>3216122

>>3217508

Quantum physics and relativity rely on maths, but are fundamentally incompatible. If you want to describe all the universe with math, you must first find a global theory.

>>3217593
Thank you for agreeing.

>>3217593
Which might be impossible to find.

>>3217613
It's a matter of belief. We don't have a global theory. I think it doesn't exist because the reality is impossible to fully understand with our primate brains, but you think we can find a theory which will explain all the universe, thus end of science. End of discussion, no logic-based argument allowed beyond this point.

You aren't a genius in mathematics.

>>3217465
>i hate hippies because i'm a sheep

>>3217656
So what's the objective of science (i.e. math) if there's no end to its understanding? Just kick it around for infinitude, for fun, tape it there for fun, kick it around for fun? Primitive, yes.

You want to believe.

>>3217664

No one is more enslaved than those who claim the truth

because isaac newton was a genius theist and youre just some faggot atheist teenager in soiled underwear

>>3217690

Why are you so mad my son?

>>3217676
The objective of science is to build efficient models to describe reality; Math is a tool, but it is not really a science on its own since you can't really do experiment.

newton was only able to "create"/discover calculus because people were horribly backwards and stupid due to the church in the middle ages. any halfway decent mathmatician today would discover it by the time they were 12

>>3217818
If only /sci/ was informed this eons ago. Much blood shed would have been avoided.

>>3217818
This.

>>3217840
Many cultures have independently discovered calculus long before Newton or Leibniz.

We're in a culture of dead white men though, so it's mostly dead white men you hear about in your science books.

>>3217879
>>3217840
damn, the butthurt is strong in these two. hurr durr religion sux it made the world suk atheism rox

>conveniently ignores the fact that every genius and influential person in history was a theist

>>3217888
Shut Up.

>>3217888
nope.avi

>>3217888
>400 years ago

Yeah, back when bloodletting was the norm for treating sickness.

>>3217888

>conveniently ignores the fact that every genius and influential person in history was a theist

No, only in antiquity, back when we didn't know better. And even then some weren't.

Today a majority of scientists worldwide (60%) are atheists, and 97% of the most accomplished scientists (National Academy members) are atheists.

>>3220422
The only creative and influential people that were theists were a product of their times (read: Brainwashed)

If Newton were aliv today he'd be an athiest

Prove me wrong

Religion is the number one killer of threads.

create a math that can describe irregular polygons with an equation

>>3220432

as a member of the scientific community I can tell you for a fact that this statistic is wrong.

the amount of people who respond as atheiest might be 60% but im guessing that if that was an actual study then they discounted the other or did not respond categories since while there is a bias towards atheism in the workplace and educational systems i woudl say only about 20 or 30% of the scientific community are actually athiest. most who would respond athiest just don't believe in a standardized religion and respond as thus.

>>3220494
please?

>>3220513

Are you kidding me, thats bullshit.

>A study in Britain, undertaken by R. Elisabeth Cornwell and Michael Stirrat, involved sending a questionnaire to all 1,074 Fellows of the Royal Society who possessed an email address, offering several propositions and asking the scientists to rank their beliefs on that point from 1 to 7. About 23 percent responded and preliminary results indicate that, of these, 3.3 percent agreed strongly (chose 7) and 78.8 percent disagreed strongly (chose 1) that a personal god exists. A total of 12 Fellows chose 6 or 7 to indicate that they were believers, while 213 Fellows chose 1 or 2 to indicate that they were nonbelievers.

>So, in the United States, 7 percent of eminent scientists believe in God, while 40 percent of less eminent scientists believe in God. In Britain, the survey indicated that just under 5 percent of eminent scientists believe in God. A lesser proportion would believe in creation; it is known that many of the general population who believe in God do not necessarily believe in a literalist version of the Creation story. In fact, Biblical-literalist creationism is considered a fringe belief.

>Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Approximately_what_percentage_of_recognized_Scientists_believes_in_Creatio
n#ixzz1PAyLK8zB

Thats Believing in God, Not identifying with a religion.

Theres a proper article out there I Just used the first google result because I'm busy.