/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11640213]

Is the entire building of math based, finally on faith their axioms are self evident but can't be proven in the end?

Is math therefore, a form of religion?

Math most fundamentals axioms are proven to be truth, not by using logic and evidence, but by circular logic.

[Anonymous No.11640763]

>>11640213
Math doesn't have to be true because as you said it is entirely self-consistent.

Basically, it doesn't matter if math is "true" because it is a man made system to describe physical phenomena. Math that has no physical meaning is pointless and shouldn't be practiced.

[Anonymous No.11640767]

>>11640763
retard

[Anonymous No.11640771]

>>11640763

[Anonymous No.11640774]

>>11640763
how long did it take you to convice yourself that, after you realisted you didnt have the iq to do math

[Anonymous No.11640776]

>>11640774
>>11640771
>>11640767
What is one use for math that doesn't describe the physical universe?

[Anonymous No.11640781]

>>11640776
?????????????????????

[Anonymous No.11640790]

deductions are trusted on the basis of being proven

proof is is trusted on the basis of being an inference

so inference rules are even more trustworthy

so that the most trustworthy things can't be proven

the undeniable facts of life belong to this category

some of them are used as axioms

the more trustworthy ones are just taken for granted

the most trustworthy ones are invisible to us

intentional reddit spacing to highlight dialectical movements

[Anonymous No.11640794]

>>11640776

[Anonymous No.11640797]

Continued from
>>11640763
All I'm saying is that OP is sort of right that math is based purely on circular logic, but it doesn't matter.

Math is not some fundamental part of the universe. The speed of light is only 299792458 m/s because we have defined what a meter and a second is. Half of 4 is 2 because we have defined it as such. But because this can be applied to physical phenomena which IS real, we can treat math as if it is true.

[Anonymous No.11640833]

>>11640797
if you have 4 sheeps and put them into 2 groups so group 1 = group 2, then you can count 1 group which is = half of the total amount of sheep. half of 4 would then be 2. 100% u watched some randomass youtube video that told u math is invented, look into the guy that knew infinity

[Anonymous No.11640870]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujvS2K06dg4

[Anonymous No.11640874]

>>11640797
No, physical reality comes from math, not the other way around.
All of matter and material grows out from the wave-function which is real but ontologically mathematical/immaterial.

[Anonymous No.11640902]

>>11640833
If I have 6 sheeps and 3 sheeps and combine the groups, I now have 9 sheeps.

Except I don't because I'm using a base 6 number system so I have 13 sheeps. All the math works exactly the same, but I have a different "number" of sheeps.

Numbers are an abstract representation.

[Anonymous No.11640913]

>>11640213
nobody works bottom up like that all the time.

math is and always has been driven by curiosity and problem solving. once you come up with an interesting problem, you see what assumptions you'd have to make to start saying anything. there is usually a lot more back-and-forth between what axioms you use and the theorems you prove than it looks in the final product.

just look at how long it took to arrive at many ideas in algebra or topology. EX: group homomorphisms were always surjective until the abstract concept was developed; there were many ideas of schemes floating around before grothendieck's; homology was originally defined in terms of numbers - the group-theoretic definition came later

[Anonymous No.11641339]

>>11640213
>Math most fundamentals axioms are proven to be truth,
You are essentially correct, but the terminology is wrong. The axioms aren’t proven at all. The are assumed as self evident. If you proof something with your axioms or other concepts you develop, from the axioms you accepted, it‘s circular in some cases, but already one step above the axiom. Next to all early mathematics was organized cult like, if we use modernen standards. So, yes mathematics is a form of accepting thoughts you can’t proof, but is that really bad?

[Anonymous No.11641370]

>>11640913
>homology was originally defined in terms of numbers
disgusting

[Anonymous No.11641374]

>>11640902
Yes, it is abstract, but verifiably so.

[Anonymous No.11641995]

>>11640213
Math is true of anything that respects the axioms of math.

So the act of faith is more like if you assume that one car is one car. Then math can help you count cars.

But if by malchance you live in a place where cars sometimes suddenly turn into 5 cars, then math will not help you count cars where you live.

[Anonymous No.11642040]

>>11640213
>Is the entire building of math based, finally on faith their axioms are self evident but can't be proven in the end?
There are systems of arithmetic which are provably consistent, but they are weaker than even the Peano axioms, if you want to know.
A good way to think of what axioms are simply to consider them definitions. Euclids(well, really hilberts axioms) define what a flat plane is and give you grounds to start solving problems and proving theorems.
But regardless, the set theoretic and logical problems are irrelevant to a significant amount of mathematics. If we go through another foundational crisis and ZFC turns out to be self contradictory, another system will be established and almost everyone who worked in geometry or in analysis will not even notice the difference. All the facts of life you know and love such as the classification of 2d closed manifolds or the prime number theorem, Gauss Bonnet theorem, Riemann-Roch with all its generalizations, Central Limit theorem, Stokes Theorem, Fermats Last Theorem, etc will likely be unaffected.

[Anonymous No.11642067]

>>11642040
PS I am retarded about foundations, so I could be wrong about first order arithmetic being provably consistent. I know that its completely decidable but thats it.