Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 193 KB, 499x478, 1474828067895.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11567472 No.11567472 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Why do so many elements of maths not relate to the physical world at all and why do universities pay people to make it?

Why do mathtards claim if I can show you a math proof it must have some physical application? Yeah sure pythag can work in N dimensions but does that mean an infinite number of dimensions exist? According to Mathtards yes, despite there being zero physics evidence for it.

What happened to abiding by the scientific method? Why is string theory so popular despite having zero physical evidence? Is it just popsci being retarded?

>> No.11567480

>>11567472
>does that mean an infinite number of dimensions exist? According to Mathtards yes
wrong, very few actually intelligent people think there are >4 dimensions.
>Why do so many elements of maths not relate to the physical world at all
because math has nothing to do with the physical world. Its just a fun exercise in logic.
>popsci being retarded?
yes.

>> No.11567485

>>11567472
Math isn't science and shouldn't have to produce anything. Think of it as like music. It's part of the human experience and thus "should" be cultivated as a thing in itself.

>> No.11567488

>>11567472
>maths not relate to the physical world
that's the main point of it ffs

>> No.11567502

>>11567472
Read this legendary article by the kid, Paul Dirac. He speaks much of the role of mathematics in physics.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24936146?seq=8#metadata_info_tab_contents

>> No.11567515

>>11567472
>Yeah sure pythag can work in N dimensions but does that mean an infinite number of dimensions exist? According to Mathtards yes, despite there being zero physics evidence for it.
The absolute state of high schoolers

>> No.11567554

>>11567472
its because universities are a money grab

>> No.11567573

>>11567472
Higher dimensional spaces occur in daily phenomena even if they don’t model “real physical space.” Like exactly what beef do you have with engineering solutions that use linear algebra for problems whose solutions lie in higher dimensional space? These solutions generally have canonical representations and interpretations and provably useful results.
>physical application
Math exists outside of physics and continues to be useful and interesting outside physics
>mathematicians claim infinite dimensions exist
“Exist” in what way? What’s stopping me from writing down a basis for a higher dimensional space using vectors? Why do I give a shit about physical limitations in 3-space if what I’m studying may or may not have to do with space? Hell, if you’re so concerned, why do physicists study 6-dimensional phase space?
It all comes down to
>reee why is all math not applied and narrow minded to be only a tool for physics
Math has often guided physics by existing by its own lmao. Hilbert was right - physics is too hard for physicists.
You are almost surely a highschooler or “autodidact.”

>> No.11567582

>>11567554
You really see people studying number theory and cryptography and think “hm it’s all a hoax and money grab. Pshh all this higher dimensional space bullshit is beyond me” and still respect physics lmao?

>> No.11567585

>>11567472
Just about every piece of math that has been "proven" eventually was discovered to govern some part of reality.

>> No.11567611

>>11567585
>but XYZ has no use at all!
I’ve still see people say abstract algebra has no application despite being among the most prominent theoretical tools in math, physics, and TCS, and despite having numerous engineering applications from software to crystal lattices. Just because what you’re studying isn’t done immediately for some application doesn’t mean it’s highly applicable work.
People are fucking dumb.

>> No.11567652

>>11567472
I was thinking about something related the other day.
Lets say you have a piece of bread, which itself is a 3d object. But the elements of that bred, the fibres in the bred are also 3d objects.
If I was to ask what are the lengths of all the fibres in the bred, wouldn't the answer to this problem have to expressed on (n) dimensions (n is number of fibres) for the bread object? Or just lots of instances of bred fibres, each with their own X,y,z properties.
But even those fibres are 3d objects comprised of 3d objects, each with a relationship to another.
So if I change the question to, what are the bread fibre lengths and which distance is between one fibre to another fibre, would that then become a multi dimensional problem?
So when considering the relationship between 3d objects in respect to their parent 3d object, is that then why there's greater than 3d mentional concepts.

Does 3d objects inside of 3d objects say something about space?
Can we make a really complex recursive function to compute the space and dimensions between all the 3d objects, of the 3d objects?

>> No.11568384

>>11567472
When will brainlets finally understand that mathematics is not in any way related to physics?
Physics uses math, math itself is not in any way related, restricted, or "about" the material world.

>> No.11568448

If you don't comprehend how any amount of math can be transferred to a practical application then you need to look deeper.

>> No.11568475

>>11567611
Applications of the collatz conjecture?

>> No.11569845

>>11567472
dumb frogposter

>> No.11570131

>>11567472
>Why do mathtards claim if I can show you a math proof it must have some physical application? Yeah sure pythag can work in N dimensions but does that mean an infinite number of dimensions exist? According to Mathtards yes
you have never spoken to a mathematician in your life. why would you lie that you know what they claim?

>> No.11570293

>>11567502
http://thediagonal.com/2010/06/25/the-evolution-of-the-physicists-picture-of-nature/

>> No.11570346

>>11567472
>Why do so many elements of maths not relate to the physical world at all and why do universities pay people to make it?
Because that would be an INSANE requirement for mathematics.
This is like demanding that every physical discovery HAS to be immediately applicable to consumer electronics.

>Why do mathtards claim if I can show you a math proof it must have some physical application?
Nobody does that.

>Yeah sure pythag can work in N dimensions but does that mean an infinite number of dimensions exist?
Modeling things with infinite dimension is EXTREMELY important in engineering and physics.

>What happened to abiding by the scientific method?
Math is not a science. It doesn't need "evidence", since it can prove things which "the scientific method" can't.

>> No.11570353

>>11567485
>Think of it as like music. It's part of the human experience and thus "should" be cultivated as a thing in itself.
Music produced as art for arts sake is shit, just as math produced for maths sake is shit.

>> No.11570361

>>11570353
>just as math produced for maths sake is shit.
But "math produced for maths sake" is what enables basically every modern technology?

>> No.11570369

Many good replies in this thread from fellow math autists. Keep up the good work fellas, but don't forget to study!

>> No.11570383

>>11570361
No, math for technology's sake is what enables "basically every modern technology". You cannot argue from the point of utility when your opinion is predicated on math's nonpracticality and nonapplication, it just being made "for the sake of itself" (that is, for no sake).

>> No.11570390

>>11570383
>No, math for technology's sake is what enables "basically every modern technology"
Nope. Nearly EVERY TIME the mathematics came first and then it's applications.
That historical trend has been VERY clear.
So much of mathematics was just mental wankery until it suddenly became very important in engineering or physics.

>You cannot argue from the point of utility when your opinion is predicated on math's nonpracticality and nonapplication
Just because something wasn't purposely made for applications doesn't mean it isn't applicable to something.

>> No.11570716

>>11570353
>Music produced as art for arts sake is shit
No it isn't
> just as math produced for maths sake is shit.
No, it isn't.
How can a person be so wrong?

>> No.11570734

>>11567472
WOW MATHFAGS BTFO HOW CAN THEY EVER RECOVER??????? LET ME FUCKING BURN ALL MY PHDS AND BRAINFARTS, IMMA GO TO DO SOME APPLICATIONS AND HELP MANKIND RIGHT THE FUCK NOW!!!!11!!1

>> No.11570804

>>11567472
>Is it just popsci being retarded?
Congratulations, you finally discovered why scientists are still scrambling all over each other to incorporate relativity theory despite the fact that Einsteinian relativity is pseudoscience.
Protip: 99% of academia is popsci

>> No.11570811
File: 33 KB, 680x465, 1586813140192.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11570811

>>11570804
>the fact that Einsteinian relativity is pseudoscience.

>> No.11571648

>>11570383
You do realize that number theory has been mathematical masturbation for the past 2000 years, and it's only now that it's finding wide applications in fields such as cryptography?

>> No.11571943

>>11570383
>No, math for technology's sake is what enables "basically every modern technology". You cannot argue from the point of utility when your opinion is predicated on math's nonpracticality and nonapplication, it just being made "for the sake of itself" (that is, for no sake).
you don't know a single thing about math, the way it works, its history, or its relation to technology. everyone can tell, you can stop pretending now.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action