/sci/ - Science & Math

More like an unsociable nerd construct.

End the axiomarchy now!

Wrong. They have objective existence outside of human minds. Read a textbook and come back.

I agree.

>>7342320
Man hands.

>>7342320
math is human shorthand for physical processes.

>>7342320
They're just sets of sentences in a formal language equipped with a logic. You can choose any set of sentences and call them axioms. However some sets of axioms will be equivalent to other sets of axioms based on what they can each prove. So typically it's not that useful to use a wildly different set when a more well known provably equivalent set exists. There are countless sets of axioms being studied in mathematics all the time, though few of them ever make it into pleb tier applied math/science because the people there are dumb as shit.

>>7343613

>>7343624
This is in line with the post you're responding to. A logic is composed of a formal language and a proof system (syntax is determined by the language and quantifiers, proof, theorem, and rules of inference are all determined by the proof system). Part 2 refers to the set of axioms which is what are being described in the post. The set of axioms itself is arbitrary in a sense, they're really just sentences in the logic.

>>7342357
Where can I find an infinite set outside of human minds?

>>7343729
>There exist people who care about the physical world when talking about math.
lol

>>7343733
>There exist people who care about the physical world when talking about math.

if you study math , thanks for proving all mathematicians thinks is useless

>>7343735
>Crying physics student detected.
lolol have fun trying to convince your professor that all this "math stuff" is useless.

>>7343733
>being a retarded Platonist
B-but muh realm of forms!

And ?

>>7343840
Using logic to make statements about the real world also requires a world of truth (either objective or subjective). Throw out the "worlds" abstraction and you've thrown pretty much everything you rely on.

That tiny brain is only partially aware of its reality. Even though she is a retarded cunt, that is the only kind of cunt I know. So my affection towards her cute tiny head is already kicking in as if my clockwork mind can only see her side looking eyes without the shitty context she put herself in.

>>7343613
>countless
Didn't gödel prove it was countable?

>>7342320
cultural marxism invading everything, meting down reality to terms that involve "feelings" instead of thoughts.

>>7342359
I want her to sit on my face while she's stroking my diggus biggus

>>7343892

That boggled my mind since I was sixteen. Is there ANY solution to that dilemma?

>>7342320

Not necessarily social. They are abstractions of experience and our best guess guess on how the world works on a very, very latent level.

The way we communicate them is social.

>>7342320

our representation of it in some ways is a social construct, our brains are logarithmic, if you ask a basically educated person what's the number between 1 and 9, they will visuals/ work out that it is 5, if you ask a tribe or something that does not use math/numbers in writing, they will say 3, because 3 is 3 times greater than 1, and 3 is 3 times smaller than 9 (additive vs multiplicative) both are right and the responses to the vague question are social constructs, yet both cultures would consider them mathematical axioms

>Having said that, the vast majority of math other than vague basic questions about math are absolute truths

>>7346349

Vsauce did a video on this recently, might be fun for /sci/ to watch

>>7346352
>>7346349

https://youtu.be/Pxb5lSPLy9c

Sorry I'm really tired

>>7342365
8/10. This will get the math girls mad.