Mathematics of the Trinity

[Anonymous No.15012107]

Is there an algebraic structure which encapsulates the Christian Trinity? Elementary algebra seems insufficient to describe it. The three persons of the Trinity are distinct from each other, while simultaneously existing as one undivided whole.

Sorry if this isn't quite /sci/, but /his/ knows nothing about higher math.

[Anonymous No.15012112]

>>15012107
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

So, any algebraic structure that is a contradiction. You could throw shit at a wall and call it "brilliance" by your standard.

[Anonymous No.15012116]

This is not higher math, it's schizo nonsense >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15012122]

1 * 1 * 1 = 1

[Anonymous No.15012126]

>>15012112
Mystical Christian traditions hold that God is ineffable and inconceivable, and therefore logical contractictions in theology are the result of our limited capicity for reason as humans.

[Anonymous No.15012130]

>>15012122
But 1 =/= 1

[Anonymous No.15012149]

>>15012107
>/his/ knows nothing about higher math.
And you quite obviously don't either.

[Anonymous No.15012159]

>>15012107
Newton spent most his time theologically trying to disprove the trinity. Go look for his old writings.

[Anonymous No.15012218]

Let:
[math]f[/math] denote the father
[math]s[/math] denote the son
[math]h[/math] denote the holy spirit
[math]g[/math] denote God

Define the relation "Is" denoted by [math]I \subseteq \{g,s,f,h\} \times \{g,s,f,h\}[/math], i will assume the relation is reflexive and symmetric, i.e. [math](x,x) \in I[/math] for all [math]x[/math] and if [math](x,y) \in I[/math] then [math](y,x) \in I[/math]
We have:
[math] I = \\ \{ (g,g), (g,s), (g,f), (g,h), \\ \phantom{\{} (s,g), (s,s) \\ \phantom{\{} (f,g), \phantom{,(g,s),} (f,f) \\ \phantom{\{} (h,g), \phantom{,(g,s),(g,f),} (h,h) \}[/math]

Observe that this relation is not transitive because [math](s,g),(g,f) \in I[/math] but [math](s,f) \notin I[/math]
Therefore [math]I[/math] is neither an equivalence nor an order relation.

Make of that last statement whatever you like, i don't know what the trinity is nor do i know anything christianity, i simply abstracted your diagram to mathematical relation, the letters g,s,f,h might as well represent anything.

[Anonymous No.15012222]

>Number theory is inconsistent, all established mathematics will be overthrown
- Edward Nelson

There's a reason why number theory is the hardest field

1 = 3 is the God's egregium theorem.

[Anonymous No.15012230]

>>15012107
It's just a set called God that contains three elements. Not that hard.

>>15012126
>God is inconceivable except for everything I happen to believe about God
That's called special pleading.

[Anonymous No.15012235]

>>15012230
>special pleading
What he said makes sense. Buzzwords don't realy make it wrong.

[Anonymous No.15012243]

>>15012107
Literally a set. God is a set containing three elements.

[Anonymous No.15012263]

>>15012243
It's a bit more subtle than the picture makes it out to be. The three elements are distinct from each other, yet simultaneously one undivided whole. It's almost like a set with 3 elements and cardinality of 1.

[Anonymous No.15012380]

>>15012107
Reality consists of 3 elements: the physical, mental, and Platonic realms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ic3qYSSk30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjLaECFDanE

[Anonymous No.15012419]

>>15012107
Father [math]\in[/math] God
The son [math]\in[/math] God
The Holy Spirit [math]\in[/math] God

Father =/= The Son =/= The Holy Spirit

C'mon guys im not even religious this is not that hard to get

[Anonymous No.15012429]

>>15012419
See>>15012263

[Anonymous No.15012430]

Do Christians really believe in flat earth?

[Anonymous No.15012448]

>>15012122
1 x 1 x 1 = 1 (wv(2,2))

[Anonymous No.15012477]

>>15012235
>What he said makes sense
Explain how.

>Buzzwords don't realy make it wrong.
Buzzwords like "ineffable" and "inconceivable?"

[Anonymous No.15012640]

>>15012430
Generally, no. Flat earth bullshit pretty much only exists on the internet. Even young earth creationists laugh at them.

[Anonymous No.15013051]

>>15012107
>>15012263
>The three persons of the Trinity are distinct from each other, while simultaneously existing as one undivided whole.
They are all omniscient, unchanging, all powerful, and always in agreement. There's no pragmatic way they are different, therefore they are one.

>>15012126
>and therefore logical contractictions in theology are
There aren't any though. The "contradictions" are just wishful thinking from cringe mouth breathers.

[Anonymous No.15013139]

>>15012107
It's an axiom. You either just accept it or you don't.

[Anonymous No.15013274]

>>15012107
https://kevinbinz.com/2015/06/26/computational-trinitarianism/

[Anonymous No.15013279]

>>15012107

[Anonymous No.15013318]

>>15012107
Your foot is not your hand is not your belly button. Yet your foot, hand, and belly button all are you.

[Anonymous No.15013333]

>>15013318
sorry but you need to dumb this down a little more before the average sci poster will be able to get it. religion is just too much for them to understand.

[Anonymous No.15013435]

fug
we need another /mlp/ board but for christfags
they ruin every board just like they ruined rome

[Anonymous No.15013471]

>>15013318
>Your foot is not your hand is not your belly button. Yet your foot, hand, and belly button all are you.
Congratulations, you've adopted the #1 heresy. Most people do, because the actual trinity is a logical contradiction and people don't like that even unconsciously. You even gave it away without realizing: "Your". Ownership connected by a single self. The analogy to body part implies central ownership to a self, one being, which is explicitly NOT the orthodox trinitarian doctrine. According to actual catholic orthodoxy, there is not a single "self" or all would be called "God", negating the trinity altogether as a thing. and that has been a chronic heresy in catholic history simply because the actual trinitarian doctrine is fucking retarded.
>>15013333
I love how in your asinine attempt to "own" people, you retards had to concede the actual orthodox view isn't sensible implicitly. Congratulations: You played yourselves.

[Anonymous No.15013485]

>>15012107
Why would God care about this.
This is a waste of time.
Imagine explaining to God how you spent time arguing about whether he is one or three things and then Jesus starts laughing at the triviality of it.

[Anonymous No.15013501]

>>15013471
No because people use God to refer to the whole trinity as well as each of the individual trinity members. Much like we use the term "you" to refer to both the whole of you and the parts of you

[Anonymous No.15013502]

>>15013471
>the actual trinity is a logical contradi
No, it's not
>the actual trinitarian doctrine is fucking retarded
Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's "retarded" When you leave your angry fee fees out of trying to understand something it tends to make more sense.

[Anonymous No.15013563]

>>15013502
>>15013501
>Just because it doesn't make sense to you
A logical contradiction, by definition, does not make sense. The doctrine of the trinity is a contradiction by definition. Ergo, it does not make sense to anybody because contradictions do not make sense.

The dipshit "Hurrr no part of body durr" misses the fact body parts are specifics of a whole. The trinity is not. So which is it? You accept doctrine, which is a contradiciton, or you admit you don't understand it?

[Anonymous No.15013729]

>>15012107
a + b + c = d
a != b != c != d

[Anonymous No.15013766]

>>15012230
>>God is inconceivable except for everything I happen to believe about God
Except for everything that was directly revealed. It's not just that someone decided to believe something one day and everyone just rolled along with it.

[Anonymous No.15013798]

>>15013729
that's not the way to see it, The Father, The Son and The Holy spirit are not "parts" of god, they ARE god.
You're gonna have to find a way to construct
a = d
b = d
c = d
while still having
a != b != c

[Anonymous No.15013908]

You might want to check out mereology and its relation to the Trinity. It's a quite old field, but got a rigorous mathematical treatment only in the beginning of the twentieth century by Lesniewski and has been used to investigate the Trinity.
There's different axiomatizations, but they usually start by defining the 'part' predicate as either a strict partial order if it is understood as proper part or just a partial order if it is understood as improper part (similarly to strict subset and subset in set theory). Then notions like overlap, fusion, etc. are defined in virtue of this primitive in order to investigate the relation between parts and wholes.

[Anonymous No.15013910]

>>15013563
>The doctrine of the trinity is a contradiction by definition
Just because it doesn't make sense to you does not mean it makes no sense.
Cherry picking some anon's rough incomplete analogy (incomplete due to the quasi valid and subjective idea that arms, legs and belly buttons are co-equal) does not have any significance yet you are fixated on it, illustrating that your fee fees are the reason it doesn't make sense to you.
>misses the fact body parts are specifics of a whole. The trinity is not
Weasel wording and wrong. Three co equal persons are each "specifics" of the Trinity depending on many ambiguous ways you could be using the word "specifics" and the trinity is a whole(according to Latin trinitarianism). You need to review the definition of the Trinity and probably lots of other basic theology.
>You accept doctrine, which is a contradiciton
No, it is not.