[ 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: 1.73 MB, 800x600, Visual_PI-5.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11098101 No.11098101 [Reply] [Original]

Are calculus theorems universally numbered? This Early Transcendentals book just labels them theorem 1,2,3 etc. Is this how they are described universally? Same with limit laws. Like is limit "law 5" universally known as the quotient law?

>> No.11098102

No, they are not.

>> No.11098111

>>11098101
of course not
christ almighty
you're reading a shit book

>> No.11098180

>>11098102
wait... why not? really

>> No.11098345

>>11098180
Do you really think it's worth trying to establish a consensus on what order to put them in or what's a theorem and what's a corollary?

>> No.11098387

>>11098345
>Do you really think it's worth trying to establish a consensus on what order to put them in or what's a theorem and what's a corollary?
I'm not a mathematician by training so it's not really in my jurisdiction to say... but I can conceive of there being a mathematician out there somewhere who is just autistic enough to do the heavy lifting for that sort of thing.

>> No.11098432

>>11098180
Calculus is so elementary that there is no need to give them names. Any mathematician worth their salt will immediately recognize the theorems and come up with their own proofs without any reference. Naming them, except the fundamental theorem of calculus, is just plain stupid. Theorems DO get names in higher analysis though, like the lebesgue dominated convergence theorem etc.

>> No.11098438

>>11098432
but why are they given names instead of simply indexing them chronologically using numerals? it sounds autistic to me so why don't mathfolk do that?

>> No.11098442

>>11098438
Because mathematicians are the opposite of autistic. Autists can't into beyond basic maths.

>> No.11098446

>>11098442
there's no way that can be right

>> No.11098448

>>11098446
You're a fucking retard who doesn't even know what autism is.

>> No.11098459

>>11098448
thanks anon, what is autism really? I'd like to know so this will never happen again

>> No.11098474

>>11098387
Well, you are wrong. The biggest set anybody can order to provide reasonable and useful mathematical structure is the real numbers. If somebody ordered theorems in a book in any way other than where they appear in the book in an intuitive order, I would expect there to be some greater use for it. Expecting everyone to be an autist about how the theorems are numbers is useless, because we would rather give the theorems descriptive names, or at least glorify an important mathematician.

>> No.11098506

>>11098474
>Well, you are wrong.
go on...
>The biggest set anybody can order to provide reasonable and useful mathematical structure is the real numbers.
I fail to see your point. Does that somehow limit an enumerative naming convention for chronologically indexing a finite number of theorems? Surely you could classify them into numerical "generations" or through some other system for the sake of pedagogical efficacy and saving ink or whatever.

>> No.11098671

>>11098448
you dumb motherfucker

>> No.11098811

>>11098506
>finite number of theorems
There are an infinite number of theorems. You cannot abstract them down into a way that they can be indexed without missing some. So in a way, yes, it does limit the naming convention. Also it's still a dumb idea that nobody likes.

>> No.11099043
File: 55 KB, 637x800, 74c0517b104977768c614748ac33e762.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11099043

This thread is adorable~ Keep it up, OP

>> No.11099054

>>11098101
In old German education apparently you didn't even learn names for theorems, you just understood them as facts about whatever topic you were learning
It sounds to me like you have been fooled by your old geometry class. Most theorems are not so important or can be derived/seen easily. The important non-trivial ones are usually given names.

>> No.11099799

>>11098438
>indexing them chronologically
How? They can be presented in different logical orders, and the order they were proved in could be wildly different from the ideal logical order, which is a subjective thing anyway.

>> No.11100910

>I am, of course, referring to Theorem 2433 whence we acquire the solution to this problem.

>> No.11101721

what is going on with that op pic? I tried to figure it out for a solid minute and now I can't fucking think straight. that pic is some kind of brainfog machine jesus fucking christ.