/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16043800]

Which axioms does /sci/ believe in?

[Anonymous No.16043822]

>>16043800
1. Math is a science just like any others. It investigates natural phenomena.
2. A proof is a convincing explanation of why a given fact is true.
3. The axioms of PA are sound with regard to natural numbers.
4. Infinity makes mathematics ugly and obfuscates it.

[Anonymous No.16043824]

>>16043822
lmao sure bro larping faggot

[Anonymous No.16043860]

Axioms are just what a thinker relies on when he has no more ideas.

[Anonymous No.16043862]

>>16043800
1) all phenomena are constantly changing with no stable period, not even for a moment
2) with no stable period, there is also no stable center that which definitively defines any phenomena
3) grasping on to these fleeting compounds is an exercise in futility

[Anonymous No.16044111]

>>16043800
https://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmset.html#axioms

[Anonymous No.16044200]

>>16043800
>Which axioms does /sci/ believe in?
Whichever ones will work.

[Anonymous No.16044411]

>>16043800
1. everything acts according to the laws of nature
2. these laws are consistent
3. the laws don't change

[Anonymous No.16044614]

There exists the real numbers: a topologically complete and totally ordered field

[Anonymous No.16044711]

>>16043862
if you actually lived your life with this philosophy you would be dead though.

[Anonymous No.16044712]

>>16043822
>3. The axioms of PA are sound with regard to natural numbers.
That's a weaker statement than "induction on natural numbers is a valid proof strategy", do you not believe this stronger axiom?

[Anonymous No.16044837]

>>16044711
No, we exists only because of the instability. Any other means is just living a lie. When you remove the lie, we dont cease to exist, we simply are

[Anonymous No.16045052]

>>16043800
the axiom of OP's homosexuality, mh, or is that a primitive?

[Anonymous No.16045446]

[Anonymous No.16045557]

>>16044837
but you continue to waste money every week to feed yourself. Why not spend that money on something fun? Because of the consistent biological reality of needing to eat

[Anonymous No.16046259]

>>16043822
Mathematics is definitely not a science as its standard for truth is completely different. Truth in mathematics is independent from observation as the Mertens Conjecture shows.

The Mertens conjecture is observably true in the sense that it has been computationally verified up to every single number it has been tested on, yet it has been shown (via a proof) that it fails to be true at a number so large it is uncomputable (in fact, there is no known explicit counterexample). This leads us to the conundrum: If a phenomenon in mathematics is observably true (in the sense that every computation we can make shows it is true) but unobservably false (in the sense in which its falsehood is derived by methods that sidestep a direct verification, and for which a numeric verification is impossible) then is the phenomenon true or false?

If mathematics were a science that investigates natural phenomena (as you claim), then it is bound by the same standard of truth other natural sciences are: experimentation. If this is the case, the conjecture in question is false as there is no concrete evidence for it to be false and every experiment (calculation) says otherwise. If we were to believe the proof to be true (and therefore the conjecture to be false) then we would have to accept that there are mathematical phenomena whose validity is unobservable, meaning that mathematics does not simply investigate natural phenomena and that proofs are more than just "convincing explanations". This conjecture deals exclusively with finite quantities, so you don't start your finitist bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16046266]

if i raff
i roose

[Anonymous No.16046402]

>>16045557
No that is in constant flux, you are not always hungry, you are hungry, you eat, you are not hungry, you don't eat, you are hungry, you eat, you are not hungry, etc, etc, etc, the wheel of hunger and digestion keeps on turning.

[Anonymous No.16046405]

>>16046402
have you ever gone longer than a month without eating?

[Anonymous No.16046410]

>>16046405
Have you ever been hungry for an entire month straight without the hunger coming and going as you move around and go to sleep?

[Anonymous No.16046411]

>>16046410
No, now answer my question

[Anonymous No.16046418]

>>16046411
You just proved hunger isn't stable, so there is no point in your question.

[Anonymous No.16046425]

>>16046418
You're right that there's no point in my question because the answer is obviously "no, I have never gone longer a month without eating", thus demonstrating the stability of needing to eat at least once per month
>BUT HUNGER FLUCTUATES
the hands of a clock fluctuate as well, you gonna tell me that clocks don't demonstrate stable behavior?

[Anonymous No.16046426]

'believing' in axioms is an oxymoron

[Anonymous No.16046432]

>>16046425
No, clocks constantly have to be re-calibrated or wound or synced and they don't represent the same time of the day from week to week since "high noon" doesn't always actually represent when the sun is at its highest, using clocks is more about convenient than permanent stability.

People do spend different amounts of money on food vs entertainment in a given week, people don't even eat just because they are hungry, nothing you are saying proves any ultimate stability.

[Anonymous No.16046433]

>>16046432
>No, clocks constantly have to be re-calibrated or wound or synced
constantly, you say?

[Anonymous No.16046434]

>>16046425
You don't need to eat, you could get all your nutrients in a drink slurry, comatose patients get it in other ways too, its just not very comfortable or satisfying so people generally choose to eat, but there were plenty of stories of people going months only eating that onions crap when it first came out.

[Anonymous No.16046437]

>>16046433
Yes, two different clocks at vastly different altitudes or traveling at two vastly different speeds will have a constant time discrepancy and need constant adjustment based on their relative differences to account for the discrepancy.

[Anonymous No.16046442]

>>16046434
shallow response

[Anonymous No.16046444]

>>16046437
Sounds like relativistic time dilation is a stable scientific phenomenon

[Anonymous No.16046445]

>>16043860
axioms are the soil from which a new theory grows.

[Anonymous No.16046446]

>>16046444
It sounded like you thought clocks were stable too and didn't know they need constant calibration, so shows how accurate your intuition about stability is.

[Anonymous No.16046447]

>>16046446
Guess we're both wrong

[Anonymous No.16046449]

>>16046447
At least you accept that you are definitely wrong, but maybe you just don't understand that those relativistic speeds the clocks go are still within certain thresholds and even then they are prone to statistical fluctuations, but we have no idea how they would work at higher speeds near light speeds or if the heat would just melt the components and render them useless instead of allowing for any stable measurement or how time would dilate exactly.

[Anonymous No.16046450]

>>16046449
>scientific principles aren't actually real, there are no stable scientific phenomena
>what about clocks, clocks seem pretty stable
>well according to the principles of special relativity...

[Anonymous No.16046464]

>>16046450
>scientific principles aren't actually real
Correct they are models.

>there are no stable scientific phenomena
We wouldn't need statistics, variability, tolerance, etc if everything was all just always 100% stable exactly as the scientific model predicted.

Lots of things seem like other things, but there wouldn't be an entire industry dedicated to constantly synchronizing atomic clocks if they were always stable instead of constantly prone to drift.

[Anonymous No.16046466]

>>16046464
How about the principle of
>heavy things fall down

[Anonymous No.16046475]

>>16046466
Often, heavy things orbit instead of falling down.

[Anonymous No.16046479]

>>16046475
Pick up a moderately heavy object right now, hold it above the floor, let go. If it starts orbiting something instead of falling down please take a video

[Anonymous No.16046482]

>>16046479
Moderately heavy is not a stable enough definition, to me, something moderately heavy can not be picked up or held by a person, but you are literally just describing launching a plane or large kite and there are plenty of videos.

[Anonymous No.16046486]

>>16046482
Okay, pick up literally anything in your room, hold it above the floor and let go

[Anonymous No.16046499]

>>16046486
Nah, she will just fly back to her cage anyway.

[Anonymous No.16046505]

>>16046499
lol at the idea of a guy phoneposting in a completely empty apartment except for a single birdcage

[Anonymous No.16046517]

>>16046505
Its not a birdcage, its actually a flying lemur cage, your intuition still isn't accurate.

[Anonymous No.16046523]

>>16046517
but it might transform into a bird at some point right?

[Anonymous No.16046527]

>>16046523
Probably not, but she's cute, so I do what I can to try to keep her from transforming into a corpse at some point knowing its futile in a long enough time frame yet unpredictable from day to day.

[Anonymous No.16046531]

>>16046527
>probably not
>yeah I guess my lemur might turn into a bird
reductio ab retardum
anyway, post lemurtits or gtfo

[Anonymous No.16046533]

>>16043822
>1. Math is a science just like any others. It investigates natural phenomena.
LMAOOOO THIS NIGGA DUMB AS HELL LOL

[Anonymous No.16046537]

>>16046531
You reduced your argument to absurd nonsense when you started going on about how hunger is stable, I have just been indulging you ever since just because things aren't unstable in some way you imagine like lemurs transforming into birds, doesn't mean they are entirely stable since they may transform into other things like a corpse or a meal if in the wild.

[Anonymous No.16046543]

>>16046537
fren it was absurd from the beginning to reject the idea that there are stable phenomena in this world

[Anonymous No.16046548]

>>16046543
No, nothing is more than semi-stable and that semi-stability is only even possible under constant monitoring and meddling.

[Anonymous No.16046550]

>>16046548
>"drop thing, thing goes down" requires constant meddling to remain true

[Anonymous No.16046554]

>>16046550
*Everything always immediately falls down except all the things that don't fall down immediately when dropped.

[Anonymous No.16046555]

>>16046554
>"drop phone, phone goes down" requires constant meddling to be true

[Anonymous No.16046559]

>>16046555
*unless your phone is attached to a selfie drone and it doesn't go down

[Anonymous No.16046560]

>>16046559
Yes, unless you attach it to a thing that suspends it in the air, but now you're stretching usage of the word "drop" beyond reason

[Anonymous No.16046565]

>>16046560
>everything always goes down except all the things that don't

[Anonymous No.16046568]

>>16046565
>"drop phone which is not attached to or placed on anything else, phone go down" requires constant meddling to be true
inb4 ensuring that your phone is not attached to helium balloons is constant meddling

[Anonymous No.16046571]

>>16046568
*helium balloons and all the other things that don't always go down and making sure you aren't in all the other places where dropped things don't fall.

[Anonymous No.16046576]

>>16046571
>making sure you aren't in outer space requires constant meddling
reductio ad retardum once again

[Anonymous No.16046579]

>>16046576
That isn't the only place where things don't fall, you are the one trying to make claims about everywhere and universal stability without being able to back it up, even if you let the phone drop, doing it over and over and measuring at atomic clock precision, you will find the rate of fall is not as stable as the models predict and there will be statistical variability and the further you drift from your ideal conditions, the further your predictions will be from reality or what you call ideal stability.

[Anonymous No.16046580]

>>16046579
>That isn't the only place where things don't fall
name a place where things don't fall that requires constant meddling to not be in

[Anonymous No.16046583]

>>16046580
The same places where they simulate and train for outer space, if I give you three answers will you quit asking retarded question? Underwater, parabolic flights, and centrifuges.

[Anonymous No.16046584]

>>16046583
>making sure you aren't underwater, in free fall, or in a centrifuge requires constant meddling
the retardation began >>16046548 by the way. The observable phenomena of
>drop phone, phone goes down
absolutely does not require constant monitoring or meddling

[Anonymous No.16046589]

>>16046584
No the retardation began way back >>16045557.

The phone only drops under certain conditions and even then its not a stable drop and there is statistical uncertainty for the exact amount of time it would reach the ground.

[Anonymous No.16046591]

>>16046589
>The phone [...] drops under certain conditions
YES

[Anonymous No.16046593]

>>16046591
Thanks for the concession, it is not stable, it requires careful considerations of conditions to even get it within a certain tolerance of the prediction.

[Anonymous No.16046595]

>>16046593
>concession
What is this reddit faggotry? We came to a mutual agreement -- under certain conditions (which are currently met by nearly every phone in existence -- disagree?), lifting the phone up into the air and releasing it will cause that phone to drop. This is a stable phenomenon, insofar as it will happen with extreme regularity. You would never bet $100 dollars that a phone -- not attached to anything -- will fly up into the air instead of falling down.
Is your definition of stable "the exact same thing happens every time down to the picosecond, down to the atomic level"? If so, I agree that there are not stable phenomena, but it's an asinine definition of stable.

[Anonymous No.16046602]

>>16046595
>We came to a mutual agreement -- under certain conditions
Yes and that means the result is not stable it is heavily contingent on constantly meddling with the conditions.

>I agree that there are not stable phenomena
Ok thanks for the concession. especially since we already agreed that even picoseconds are not inherently stable and requires an entire atomic clock industry tied to the military to maintain the illusion.

[Anonymous No.16046608]

>>16046602
Yeah man it takes constant meddling to ensure that you are not in outer space or in a centrifuge
I'll do you one further re: stability and point out that stability is gradated property, like "small" or "retarded". Some phenomena are extremely stable, some phenomena are extremely unstable, some are in the middle. There is no such thing as 100% stability. As you've demonstrated, some posts are extremely retarded, yet despite your best efforts you will never reach 100% retardation, as you can always get a little more retarded

[Anonymous No.16046612]

>>16046608
No, you are definitely at least 100% more retarded than me since you are the one conceding after spouting fallacies, trying to pass off your intuition as fact, and mistaking the map for the territory implying scientific models/principles are the same as reality.

[Anonymous No.16046613]

>>16046602
>>16046608
next time try coming to terms on what stable' phenomenon' actually means before you argue around each other for an hour

[Anonymous No.16046616]

>>16046613
I had fun

[Anonymous No.16046622]

>>16046613
The dictionary already does that, its the people using stable to mean semi-stable while maintaining certain circumstances who need to come to terms.

[Anonymous No.16046624]

>>16046612
I see what you're saying about spouting fallacies, agreed it was simplistic / snarky of me to talk about feeding yourself. To explain what I mean in a politer way, the answer to the question "did you eat food in the past seven days" is going to consistently be "yes". To me, this is what it means for a thing to be stable -- it is consistently one way or does one thing over and over and over. Meet me halfway here and agree that with THIS notion of stability, there are stable phenomena. Then we can just disagree on whose notion of stability is better. I've enjoyed the bitchfight but >>16046613 is right, arguments over mismatched definitions are pretty gay

[Anonymous No.16046632]

>>16046624
Oh ok sure lets just use your personal definitions of stability where it doesn't have to be 100% stability to be stability, that won't confuse things at all.
I already granted you semi-stability and pointed out why actual stability is not possible, but there are poor third worlds and entire religions, extremist monks, people on hunger strikes that pride themselves on going weeks without eating, so no your best example of your first world assumptions are not universally consistent either.

[Anonymous No.16046634]

>>16046632
if instead of week I said year would that appease your autism?

[Anonymous No.16046640]

>>16046634
No I would just say you are making your measurements as imprecise as possible to mask the underlying instability.

[Anonymous No.16046644]

>>16046640
perhaps you are the one making your measurements as small as possible to mask the underlying stability

[Anonymous No.16046653]

>>16046644
Makes no sense, if something were actually stable instead of dependent on the circumstances, measurement at any precision would also be stable.

[Anonymous No.16046767]

>>16046640
>I promise pi is a stable constant, even though sometimes it equals 3.1415... and sometimes it equals 3.1426...

[Anonymous No.16046768]

>>16046644
>I promise pi is a stable constant, even though sometimes it equals 3.1415... and sometimes it equals 3.1426...

[Anonymous No.16046939]

>>16046259
I agree somewhat with your statement that Mathematics is not really a science but your example here is quite misleading (and in fact, wrong. As you said the Mertens Conjecture computationally seems to be true but is actually proven false. And yes we don't yet know an explicit counterexample. But if it HAS BEEN PROVEN false implies it is wrong both observably and unobservably. It's just the case that we don't yet have the computing power to get to the first counterexample. It is not theoretically uncomputable. As a matter of fact, we know that It was later shown that the first counterexample appears below
10^(1.39 x 10^64) and above 10^16.

[Anonymous No.16047205]

>>16046445
read this without the l

[Anonymous No.16047278]

>>16046653
nah man, the chair you're sitting in is stably supporting your fat ass even though if you zoom in on the subatomic level some of your particles are strictly lower than some of the chair's

[Anonymous No.16047337]

>>16046939
My point was that the fact that showing something is false without having an explicit counterexample (and in this case any such counterexample would be outside our computing power) means that there has actually never been a direct computation that shows the conjecture is false. I never claimed that the counterexample is theoretically uncomputable, just that it is currently uncomputable (which in this case shows that there is no experimental method to show the conjecture is false)

I might have chosen my words incorrectly, yet my point is that if you were to believe that mathematics is just a science (and therefore dependent on experimentation) then one would be at odds with the validity of the conjecture in question.

My point was that one is in possession of a logical argument that shows the conjecture is false regardless of any computational verification (I chose the counterexample as any verification would be impossible for us to perform currently) shows that proofs are more than just "convincing arguments". For the record, I do believe in the validity of the falsehood of the conjecture, I am not sure of what the original poster referred to as "mathematical truth". If the poster believes proofs are a sufficient standard of truth for Mathematics, then he is forced to concede that mathematics are not a natural science.

[Anonymous No.16048121]

>>16047278
Good one, you really showed anon and changes a lot of minds today.

[Anonymous No.16048161]

>>16046445
And yet, woe is the thinker who is merely the soil, and not the gardener, of the thoughts that grow in him.