/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5824371
Is that really true...

Maths is a tool for science

>>5824375
Being realistic there's no way of knowing for sure.

>>5824366
>>5824375
OP seriously
seriously OP
you should seriously go read a book

>>5824378
>>5824375

OP, math and science are completely different.

Are you both retarded?

Consider that each star in our galaxy contains at least one atom. That means there are at least as many atoms as there are stars in our galaxy and so on.

The only dumber post you could have made was this one. >>5824377

>>5824397
What if most of the stars don't have any atoms in them

>>5824403
They have to. Lava is made of atoms.

>>5824405
Oh...ok.

>>5824403
What?
>>5824405
WHAT? LAVA?

What the fuck is going on? Is this bring your daughter to /sci/ day or something?

>>5824431
The lava that makes up the sun is itself made up of atoms. How difficult is this to grasp?

>>5824437
There is no lava on stars, it's pretty easy to grasp.

>>5824371

This is retarded.

>>5824431
This is bring your le epik trole to /sci/ day, like most days.

>>5824449
It's meant to be a joke.
Idiots on this thread just didn't get it.

>>5824375
>number of x in a confined space
>number of y in an infinite space
>logic

>>5824454
It has nothing to do with that moron. How can the number of ANYTHING (matter) be more than the number of atoms? It's simple logic, and you failed as well.

Also, we don't know that the universe is infinite, fyi.

>>5824458
Atoms are not the only form of matter. There's also particles that aren't atoms

>>5824454
But there could be a finite number of atoms in an infinite universe, and it could be less than the number of stars in the Milky Way

>>5824460
No, no there aren't. Unless you're talking about subatomic particles or antimatter or dark matter or some stupid shit as if it was a trick question or something. Just shut up retard.

>>5824459
Goddamn you stupid fuck, what do you think the milky way is made of? Fucking immaterial dairy products? IT'S ATOMS.

It's like asking if the number of puzzle pieces on earth are more than the number of puzzles.

mfw my picture sparked this utterly retarded debate.

Successful troll is successful.

>>5824471
It doesn't count as a troll if it's actually a joke and people are too stupid to get it.

>>5824466
Using the concept of the big bang originating as a mass of energy... there could be NO atoms in the universe, just maybe not at the particular time.

Also considering that the stars we see are light energy they may no longer or even have never been made of atoms, making more stars than atoms extremely viable.

>>5824474
It shouldn't. But it seems to have worked that way today.

>>5824460
>Atoms=particles
Whut?

>>5824476
Holy shit dude, at first I was going to write a long elaborate response but... Please tell me you haven't graduated high-school yet. It's really sad if your country's education system has failed you THIS horribly.

Here, read these:
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

>>5824485
I'm at uni, not doing any space related subject. Although I don't see how that would make my education system to have failed me.

The second paragraph "the universe began as very hot, small, and dense, with no stars, atoms, form, or structure". There's my first argument, "no atoms". I will admit the "the" was meant to be "this"... "just maybe not at the particular time."

My second argument simply notes that we see the energy from these stars, which may no longer be there, perhaps a mass of energy again or even just subatomic particles.

Also to the second argument, we interpret the light we see as stars, all we can really determine is that light is coming from a particular location. Hence the potential of no atoms there at all.

>>5824507
>I'm at uni, not doing any space related subject. Although I don't see how that would make my education system to have failed me.
Who doesn't know stars are made up of atoms for fucks sake?
>The second paragraph "the universe began as very hot, small, and dense, with no stars, atoms, form, or structure". There's my first argument, "no atoms". I will admit the "the" was meant to be "this"... "just maybe not at the particular time."
Didn't even read the whole thing huh? It was a quark soup, meaning subatomic particles, meaning MY argument.
>>5824462

>My second argument simply notes that we see the energy from these stars, which may no longer be there, perhaps a mass of energy again or even just subatomic particles.
Mass of energy? No such thing.

>Also to the second argument, we interpret the light we see as stars, all we can really determine is that light is coming from a particular location. Hence the potential of no atoms there at all.
There cannot be radiation when there aren't any particles.

I'm not your goddamn teacher so this is my last reply to you. Go read the pages properly if you want to learn or stay a stubborn fucking imbecile if you want.

>>5824366
>Science ≠ Math
Yeah, that's it. The symbolic world in which an autist lives is nothing compared to the real world that is studied by science.

Maths.
The science of numberical values.

>>5824579
Numbers do not exist.

>>5824397
>Buttdevastated mathfag

It's nothing but a tool

>>5824507
It is easy to infer not only that stars are made of matter, but also what kinds of matter, based on the spectra of the light that we coming from them. We compare that spectra to those of elements we heat on earth and see that they match. Spectral analysis is the very basis of astronomy and cosmology, since it also allows us to detect the expansion of space by noticing that some spectra are red-shifted.

>>5824542
I love you.

>>5824583
your mom do not exist

>>5824377
And science is a tool for math. cf. for example Donaldson theory, Kontsevich integral, Seiberg-Witten theory, mirror symmetry, etc.

>>5824629
It isn't. There are no tools for maths for it has no denotat and, therefore, means nothing.
Though all mathematical theories have been born from science.

>>5824638
>no denotat
Right. Well, be that as it may, even if maths is just a sequence of symbols we assign meaning to (oh boy, I'm giving it away already), it is not meaningless, because we give meaning to it.

And even then; meaninglessness does not imply nonexistence of tools. And have you viewed the examples I gave? They make a pretty strong case. For a simpler one, check Witten's conjecture (or Kontsevich's theorem, if you like).

>>5824656
You're giving away nothing to those without ears.

>>5824638
>Though all mathematical theories have been born from science.
>implying science was around when Euclid wrote his elements

>>5824659
Are you trolling?
Science has always been, even if it wasn't defined as such.

>>5824638
>Though all mathematical theories have been born from science.

>Implying category theory was not born for the sole purpose of abstracting mathematics.

>>5824662
Alright, you caught me. What was I thinking, ignoring the seminal work the dinosaurs did on ecology. Stupid me.

Alright, what scientific theory did Euclid's stuff come from? And ZFC? For bonus points, find the parts of science from which intuitionistic logic stems.

>>5824656
>we give meaning to it.
A meaning can be obtained only from one place, the universe.
>does not imply nonexistence of tools.
If they're thought by a human, it implies. And mathematics doesn't exit as a free entity.
>For a simpler one, check Witten's conjecture
It's an example of too new maths to learn. There are more things I should study now. I'll look at that, if you describe how some properties of schemes (for example, property of being coherent) preserve though exact sequences.
>>5824670
Its origination was theories which were based on theories which were derived from science. It was made for algebraic topology.

>>5824670
>implying maths was never abstract since the beginning
>2000+(26/2)
lel

>>5824682
>Its origination was theories which were based on theories which were derived from science. It was made for algebraic topology.

This is not a valid argument.
You asked as counterexample things which were born not from science.
Not for thing which were born from things which were born not from science.
What's next, will you say that modern mathematics were all born from the pencil that was made with modern science?
Are you that retarded? Stop moving the pole.
Just admit your loss, category theory is a remarkable example of shit which has nothing to do with science, it's a wholly mathematical construction; inspired by math and made for math.

>>5824682
>A meaning can be obtained only from one place, the universe.
You would love religion.

>If they're thought by a human, it implies.
I'm not quite sure what this sentence means. Please dumb it down to my level.

>It's an example of too new maths to learn.
You don't have to understand every detail of it to get the point. You have these intersection numbers in geometry, called Hodge integrals. You can collect these into a generating function, G, say. And this function corresponds to a certain fundamental quantity (X, say) in one specific theory of 2d quantum gravity.

And on a completely unrelated note, you have this thing which arises in the theory of integrable systems called the KdV hierarchy (it's just a certain infinite system of PDEs, nothing really fancy). There is another theory of 2d quantum gravity, in which the quantity X is a solution of the KdV hierarchy.

Witten noticed that for physical reasons (so no rigorous proof was given), these two theories are equivalent, and hence concluded that the generating function of Hodge integrals was a solution to the KdV hierarchy. So from physics there arose this conjecture which was at the time completely farfetched; a non-physicist wouldn't have thought of it in a million years. Thus, science can serve as a tool for maths. (this example is a bit weak when compared to the other examples I gave)

If this doesn't convince that the interaction between science and maths isn't a one-way road, I don't know what will. And frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

Yes, it's a board for Science AND Math topics, or would imply only one topic can be posted at a time.

>>5824690
>Not for thing which were born from things which were born not from science.
Lol, if something was born from a thing that was born from science, it was born from science too.
>What's next
I'll say that all modern mathematics (except for few cases, for example, theory of computability) was born from the works of Newton and Leibniz. They had the only aim: research of the universe.
>>5824704
>You would love religion.
It's madness. Madness hasn't any meaning.
>I'm not quite sure what this sentence means.
Meaning is the only requirement for tools of reasoning. If they're meaningless, they don't exist.
>You don't have to understand every detail of it to get the point.
I don't want to get the point now. Probably after Deligne's book.
> called Hodge integrals
Unless you've learned schemes, don't use complex geometry.

>>5824730
Transitivity is not that obvious.
If I do give something that has an unclear origin, won't you say that if we dig deep enough it will hit science?
In fact, thats exactly what you are saying after your second quote.
There is no convincing people like you, you won't give any falsifiable claims and just keep on believing whatever fairytail suits you best.

So whats your explanation for Matroid theory?
Grace me with your convoluted and self-serving explanation on it's mathematical history.

>>5824447
Oh yeah, then why are they so hot?

>>5824741
Fission.

>>5824743
Oh yeah, who made the fission reactor, god? Sure thing.

>>5824747

>>5824743
Yeah no it's fusion

>>5824749

>>5824752

>>5824754

>>5824756

>>5824765

>>5824766

>>5824766
Surely they're prey to something?

>>5824771

>>5824773
They lack brains so they're illogical

>>5824774

>>5824778
How does that answer my question?

>>5824780

>>5824739
>Transitivity is not that obvious.
Alright, if you have a thought about a thing, and it gives birth to another thought. The last one has no relation with the concerned thing.
>won't you say that if we dig deep enough it will hit science?
Of course, I will. Because nothing can be made in our mind without origination in the real world.
>Matroid theory
Lol, nothing to say about that. Have you heard about core maths? I'd like to call other "maths" with word "shit". So, how can I explain the shit you showed?

>>5824781
Prey requires a hunter which requires intent to hunt. Otherwise it's just mindless consumption

>>5824782

>>5824787

>>5824789

>>5824792

>>5824795

>>5824801

>>5824801

>>5824804

>>5824785
>The last one has no relation with the concerned thing.
That's exactly what I'm trying to say.
How can you be this autistic.
You're the kind of man that would beat up a child just because their father was a rapist.

>Because nothing can be made in our mind without origination in the real world.
Why is that? Because our brain that thinks it works on SCIENCE? And so everything it thinks is based on SCIENCE?
You gallantly accepted the reductio ad absurdum argument I've given earlier, about the pencils and whatnot.
furthermore, you're just begging the question.

Don't bother replying, because this dialogue is done.
I want to have no more part in this tomfoolery, without knowledge of whether I'm speaking to a troll or a retard.

>>5824730
>I don't want to get the point now.
I figured out your problem. That's ok though, you'll get out of your mathematical shyness eventually.

>>5824785
>Lol, nothing to say about that. Have you heard about core maths? I'd like to call other "maths" with word "shit". So, how can I explain the shit you showed?
>>5824808
>Don't bother replying, because this dialogue is done.
>I want to have no more part in this tomfoolery, without knowledge of whether I'm speaking to a troll or a retard.

Shows me for coming to /sci/ for intelligent discussion. Welp, back to [s4s].

Most of the matter in the universe, including stars, is made of plasma. Most of the mass inside a star isn't going to be made of atoms. Atom cores? Sure, but not atoms.

Of course, there should be at least one atom in the vicinity of any star, so the proposition is still retarded.

>>5824808
>That's exactly what I'm trying to say.
Then your reasoning is completely disorganized (and therefore maths doesn't exist for you). How can you claim such nonsense?
>You're the kind of man that would beat up a child just because their father was a rapist.
We're talking about thoughts.
>Why is that?
Because only perception can cause reasoning. Only source of perception is the real world. Nobody has ever seen the product of pure mind. It doesn't exist.
>You gallantly accepted
I don't simply read every thing you write. Sorry.

http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html
We need more Arnold.
> Mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science, a part of natural science. Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap.

ITT: /sci/ board culture

>>5824366
>/sci/ - Science & Math
>Science ≠ Math
>Science & Math
>& Math
>&

>>5824375
Yes, according to humanity's current knowledge that is indeed true.

>>5824366
When are they going to get rid of the "Nature" in the title of /an/ now that there's /out/ that can fill the void and make /an/ just about lifeforms?!?

toplel at this whole thread

>>5824863
They should replace the "and" by an "or".

>>5825315
Why? The board is for science and maths and can feasibly have threads about both at once.

>>5825327
>The board is for science or maths and can feasibly have threads about only one.

ftfy, lrn2logicalAND/OR

Why do physicists always fight so much for mathgod reflected glory? Why can't they be happy with their statistics based "truths"?

>>5824405
What about ice?

>>5826544
Negative atoms.

>>5827331
How about imaginary atoms?

>>5827864
Holy shit, are you saying that if we took a sun of imaginary atoms and crashed it into a sun of imaginary atoms, then it would turn into a sun of negative atoms? I think we're definitely onto something here.

>>5825327
>he board is for science and maths and can feasibly have threads about both at once.

but it seems impossible to have a thread about sociology/economics/psychology without it being shitposted even tough all of those fields are science. (the title doesn't specify that threads have to be about physical sciences).

>/sci/ can't into science.

>>5827913
>pseudoscience is a science

>>5827922

>implying you know what pseudoscience means
>implying you even know what science means

>>5827925
>implying those pseudoscience "fields" have more rigor that numerology and astrology.

>>5827925
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

This thread is comedy geld

I stopped caring about math when I was introduced to the concept of imaginary numbers. What a crock of shit. If your equation can only be solved by inventing numbers that can't exist, like some kind of math deity , then you are fucking wrong and the math is flawed. Same for algebra solutions that basically say "the correct answer is whatever the correct answer is". Thats what the math said transcribed to words but god forbid if i wrote in down in english instead of the ancient math runes the teacher word mark me wrong.

Math is logical and numbers never lie my ass. Math is just as flawed as any other human construct.

>>5827922
>>5827925
>>5827972

>>5828007
Did you fail math in high school by any chance?

>>5828022

that's a copy pasta; they got you

>>5827331
Thanks, that actually makes sense.

>>5828062
Oh snap!

I've read somewhere that Binary Star systems are more common than singular. But can't find any sources on how common they are at all, can /sci/ hook me up with some reading material, preferably easily digestible?

>>5824471
Even if you tried to troll you fucked up saying it you dumbass

>>5830358
What if she didn't try to troll?

Are you autistic
Math isn't a science , but irrelevant,
Because a store is called gas and food, does not make gas, food.

>>5824371
>>5824375
Number of stars in our galaxy Nsg
Number of stars in the universe Nsu
Number of atoms in a star Nas
Number of atoms in the universe Nau

Nsu>Nsg
Nas>1

Nau=Nsu*Nas

Let x be a real number ≥ 1

Nsu=Nsg*x
Nas=x

From this, it follows that:

Nau=Nsg*x*Nas
Nau=Nsg*x*x

x≥1

Therefore, Nsg≯Nau

This is how OP operates on a day to day basis:
>Guns and Roses.
What the fuck, guns aren't roses!
>The Old Man and the Sea
What the fuck, people can't be bodies of water!
>The Prince and The Pauper
What the fuck, princes aren't paupers!

>>5824405
Are you implying stars are exclusively made of lava?

>>5833106
What else are they made of? I can only guess that maybe they contain some carbon too.

>>5834205
There is also ice in some of them.

>>5835037
Wouldn't ice melt in a star?