/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1611077]

Forget the physics vs. mathematics debate. I think everyone can agree that the purest discipline of all is logic.

[Anonymous No.1611090]

Could've you at least used a comic sans font so it could somewhat match up with the rest of the comic? Sigh.

[Anonymous No.1611095]

Purest is mathematics.

[Anonymous No.1611097]

>>1611090

Like that really matters.

Sigh.

[Anonymous No.1611098]

>>1611095

Mathematics is an extension of logic, you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.1611100]

>>1611097
It does man, it really does.

[Anonymous No.1611101]

Logic is overrated. I prefer to go by what makes sense to personally, fuck the rest.

[Anonymous No.1611104]

I don't get understand why everyone here sees philosophy as pointless. Is it because you struggle with it and genuinely see no point, or is this some engineeresque in joke I haven't been informed about?

[Anonymous No.1611103]

>>1611097
Logic is overrated. I prefer to go by what makes sense to me and me personally, fuck the rest.

[Anonymous No.1611105]

>>1611098
No logic is an extension of mathematics. Prove me wrong you retard.

[Anonymous No.1611108]

>>1611104
get/understand*

[Anonymous No.1611107]

>>1611101

> liberal arts fag detected.

[Anonymous No.1611109]

>>1611104
Philosophy is mostly subjectivity and interpretations, it lacks certainty and empiricism, thus isn't completely relevant to the science board. Maybe an arts board, but not science.

[Anonymous No.1611116]

>>1611105

1. Look up the Peano axioms.
2. Discover that logical statements are the foundation of theory of natural numbers, and that all other fields can be derived from this.
3. Realize that this makes mathematics logically consistent, which is why it is impossible to use one result to disprove another.
4. Get off the internet, and shove your face up your ass.
5. Fart and breathe deeply.
6. ???
7. PROFIT.

[Anonymous No.1611121]

all logicians are either mathematicians or shitty

[Anonymous No.1611133]

The only difference between Mathematics and Logic is application (and even then there is no difference)

[Anonymous No.1611140]

Without logic, math would not exist.
Why does 1+1=2?
It's logical. We LOGICALLY deduce this, probably first by placing two fish next to each other and realizing that there were two fish next to each other.

Maths is set in stone. It exists, we obseve. Logic let's us obseve. Logic is a human tool, math is a language used to describe what we see. Without either of them, we're fucked, so just accept that they are BOTH equally important.

[Anonymous No.1611145]

>>1611140

<span class="math"> 1:=S(0) [/spoiler]
<span class="math"> 2:=S(1)=S(S(0)) [/spoiler]

We then get by the definition of addition:

<span class="math"> 1+1=S(0)+1=S(0+1)=S(1)=2 [/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.1611144]

>>1611104

I believe that the formalization of logic is arguably the one greatest achievement of humankind. However, I have no time for the wishy washy touchy feely philosophies of life/religion/ethics that the vast majority of hipster faggots are familiar with.

The irony of it all is that while people read Nietzsche and Satre, passing themselves off as intellectuals, the Continental brand of philosophy is in its death throws in academia, and the majority of philosophy departments are adopting the analytic paradigm.

[Anonymous No.1611155]

>>1611121

How would you like a face full of hurt?

[Anonymous No.1611156]

>>1611140

Actually....

<span class="math"> 1 \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} S(0) [/spoiler]
<span class="math"> 2 \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} S(1)=S(S(0)) [/spoiler]

By definition of addition we have:

<span class="math"> 1+1=S(0)+1=S(0+1)=S(1)=2 [/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.1611160]

>>1611140

Actually...

<span class="math"> 1 :\,= S(0) [/spoiler]
<span class="math"> 2 :\,= S(1)=S(S(0)) [/spoiler]

By definition of addition on <span class="math"> \mathbb{N} [/spoiler] we have:

<span class="math"> 1+1=S(0)+1=S(0+1)=S(1)=2 [/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.1611164]

>3. Realize that this makes mathematics logically consistent, which is why it is impossible to use one result to disprove another.
ZFC has not been shown to be consistent. Peano axioms are for wimps. (And of course a subset of ZFC).

[Anonymous No.1611169]

>>1611164

It hasn't been shown, but it's still widely believed it is consistent.

[Anonymous No.1611175]

>>1611169

Oh and Peano axioms are fucking awesome

[Anonymous No.1611176]

Hm, perhaps we should consider the history, too.

For a very long time nobody gave a flying fuck about rigorous proofs, thus there wasn't a need for a strict axiomatization of mathematics.

The formalization of mathematics is historically a rather new phenomenon (starting earlier, but really gaining momentum with Hilbert's program around 1900) and thus I sadly have to admit that: no, mathematics is not applied logic. Or perhaps phrased better: todays logicians would've been laughed at by Gauss or Euler for example. They were doing serious busyness while logicians seem to rotate around themselves.

No hard feelings, you fucking gay philosophers.

[Anonymous No.1611194]

>>1611176
Actually I want to revise my position:
mathematics isn't applied logic. It's rather that logic is a (relatively new) discipline of modern mathematics.

So formally, yes, theoretically mathematics is just applied logic. But a much more accurate picture is given by the description above.

[Anonymous No.1611221]

>>1611194

I always thought of logic as a subset of mathematics, just a very very important subset that is the basis for a lot of the formalization of modern mathematics.