[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 298 KB, 1404x1024, 1539366490806[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10066630 No.10066630 [Reply] [Original]

refute this, oh wait, you can't.

>> No.10066641

>>10066630
1 x 1 = 1 because when you multiply the first number is the set of the second, it just so happens that the order doesn't matter

>> No.10066720

He's black

>> No.10066792

>>10066720
spbp

>> No.10067183

Because intelligence is a function of doubt, highly intelligent people experience the Dunning-Kruger effect powerfully. Those with the greatest mental prowess are often almost disabled by the intricacy and complexity of something like water in a bathtub (see the Navier–Stokes equations - Wikipedia) whereas the rest of us are functionally ignorant enough to ‘get on with life’. Hence, the smartest people naturally doubt their own abilities by virtue of their capacity to appreciate ‘known and unknown unknowns’ and their ironic error is often reinforced by the ease with which their possibly less cerebral colleagues perform functions they thought impossibly complicated.

For example, I still struggle with counting. Seriously. I am not sure that I can ever believe that 1+1=2 since it seems almost irreconcilable to my sense of logic that two discrete entities (ones) might be magically made identical (despite clearly occupying different positions in the very short series 1+1…) such that some new number can be constructed from them and yet share none of their essential properties. How is it that the (square root of a thing) added to (itself) produces (something) whose own square root is not the (original square root whose addition to itself produced [thing two])? Seriously, that's annoying. The square root of one is one and the square of one is also one such that the square root of two can be logically described as the square root of two squares whose products are themselves. As you see, language can't even contain what I am trying to describe. I am forced to name (or enumerate) the entity I am trying to prove non-existent by virtue of the attempt at disproof. If such a linguistic proof (using typographical number theory) of the hypothesis ‘two does not exist since it cannot be logically constructed’ is rendered impossible by such forced enumeration (naming) then how is it that you get the gist of what I am unable to say?

>> No.10067270

>What's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two

So this is the power of affirmative action...