[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 65 KB, 500x378, 1318048420820.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3868805 No.3868805 [Reply] [Original]

Its all bout +.
- is the negative +
* is + many times.
/ is - many times
^n is even more +
etc etc
= is =, self explanatory


Math is adding.
Advanced math is more adding.
Prove me wrong.

I didn't pick math cause its so fucking easy.

Pic related: its physics, the masters of universe.

>> No.3868806

good luck with your mathless physics

>> No.3868807

Trigonometry.
Did you do any math at all past 4th grade?

>> No.3868813

>>3868807
What about it?
You still use the ADDING and its children in different form.

You're that stupid?

>> No.3868814

>>3868807
those are geometric series.

i.e. a shit-load of adding.

>> No.3868844

>Math is adding.

So?

Does this, somehow, make it irrelevant or uninteresting?

>> No.3868858

>>3868844
Its the key to understand logic and intelligence.
Also makes math look less threatening.

>> No.3868866

>>3868858

Sure... so its possibly a good thing?
Either way, you may simplify it to oblivion, but hard math is still fucking hard...

>> No.3868872

>Prove me wrong.
Counter-example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheaf_theory
These is no addition, subtraction, multiplication or division here.

>> No.3868873

>implying maths is necessarily numerical

LOL engineers/physicists

>> No.3868875

There's more to it than adding. Sure adding is a part of it, but if you were adding numbers following only the rule
>1. add shit together
then I doubt your equations will yield very useful results.

6/10 for making me respond.

>> No.3868877

OP has never done any higher level math.

>> No.3868892 [DELETED] 
File: 40 KB, 392x578, 1271716331598.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3868892

mfw calculus

>> No.3868943

>>3868877
You are too dumb to realize that all that 'complex' stuff is just adding adding in a sophisticated way.
No, hard math is not really hard.

>> No.3869199

Math is for calculators, its no news.

>> No.3869226

>>3868866

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0&list=LLnjNVYrLJ6CVHTZYrmHr59w&index=5

>> No.3869232

>>3869226
lol
+1

>> No.3869243

In other words, OP needs to study set theory and relations.

>> No.3869250

OPs never seen a non-abelian group.

>> No.3869318

the complex number....
done

>> No.3869355

Logic, sets and even division aren't all about adding.

>> No.3869358

so how's division explained by substracting again?

>> No.3869362
File: 3 KB, 196x171, 1311548930458.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3869362

>>3869358

>> No.3869368

>>3869362
m/n

give me an algorithm to find the value of this only by substracting

>> No.3869371

>>3869358
See
>>3869226

>> No.3869372

>>3869371
See
>>3869226

>> No.3869373

>>3869243
You clearly lack the mathematical mind, set theory is entirely based on what OP said.

>> No.3869375

>>3869372
See
>>3869226

>> No.3869376

Try to prove the Poincare conjecture only using addition.

>> No.3869380

>>3869375
See
>My balls

>> No.3869384

>>3869355
>division is not about adding.
10/2= 2*5=5+5

>> No.3869386

Try to bump using only sage.

>> No.3869387

>>3868805
- is - +. No shit Sherlock, that's using a word in its own definition, that doesn't mean that it's adding. / is not - many times either, it's the opposite of * (which doesn't mean that it is * itself!). Sure, ^n is * and * is plus, but that doesn't mean all math is adding.

>> No.3869390

>>3869384
but

but 10/2 is not 5*2

>> No.3869396

>>3869390
oh i missed one, i was to eager.

10/2=5
2*5=5+5=10
10-5=5

Now you realize division is addition.

>> No.3869398

>>3868805
Why do you think that adding is the base? Just because it is the one you learn first? Think about this, + is the opposite of -, thus, - could be what all of math is, since you just proved (not really) that all of math is derived from adding, which could be derived from subtracting. So then, think, if this could work with not just adding and subtracting, but everything, since everything in math is the same, how do we know that all of this isn't derived from * or /, or for that matter, derivatives? So then, rather than saying that all of it arises from one function, we just give a name to the overarching idea that is all of them united. And that name, is math.

>> No.3869399

OK, if math is not adding then what is?
inb4 "logic"
No, try something more original, like OP.

>> No.3869412

>>3869398
I used adding as the base and not subtracting because adding is more natural to the human mind, in other words just for practical and comprehensive reasons, am very aware that they are the two sides of the same coin, that is my whole point after all.

Also, biologists noticed that the earliest intellectual capability was adding, like a wolf can understand when is being outnumbered, he essentially using addition, and withdraws so it doesnt get killed.

>> No.3869418

So, if math is easy.
And physics is just applied math.
And applied mats is a subset of mats.
Which means it's easier.
That means physics is easier than math.

What was the argument?

>> No.3869424

>>3869418
Actually no.

Math is definitely not applied physics.

Physics
Chemistry
Biology
etc
------
Logic
Set theory
Math
etc

One is the study of the universe and the other category is the study of logic.

If only physics was applied math, that would make things easier.

>> No.3869426

>>3869424
>Math is definitely not applied physics.
Yeah, because physics is applied math.
That's what I said. Not the other way around.

>> No.3869430

All physics is math, but not all math is physics.

Math>physics.

>> No.3869433

>>3869426
Oh sorry, wrong phrasing.

What i meant and proved you is that they dont apply one another.
They are in different categories.

>> No.3869444

>>3869424
More like:
Logic breaks down in 3 categories:

Science: physics, chem, bio
Philosophy: philosophy, more philosophy and some armchairs
Math: Set, Math

>> No.3869447

A mathematician would have a very easy time in a physics career, everything is modeled by equations and many things are intuitive, those which are not are still summed up in equations so no problem. Math knowledge is gateway to everything

>> No.3869448

>>3869433
Strictly, yes.
To be precise, Physics⊆App. math.
That doesn't exactly proves my point wrong.

>> No.3869454

>>3869396
yes you can get the result of a divison by substracting shit to other shit

but
>>3869368

>> No.3869463

>>3869384
10/7
What now.

The only thing you can do is to change it to 10 * 1/7. You still have to use division though.

>> No.3869469

>>3869447
this is just wrong. A mathematician would cringe at the kind of math that physicists use, which is filled with approximations and tricks that are anything but mathematically rigorous. You don't sound like you study either subject to me. are you still in highschool?

>> No.3869478
File: 54 KB, 256x353, linklaugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3869478

>>3869469
Wait, you mean in other areas of study people actually just "do whatever [tricks] their professor tells them to do" and don't actually explore the concepts themselves?

>> No.3869485

Division cannot be expressed as repeated addition, substraction or multiplication.
Prove me wrong.

>> No.3869489

>>3869478
ok fine. Bring a mathematicians proof based logic to bear on physics and see how far you get.

>> No.3869492

>>3868805
awesome picture

>> No.3869494

>>3869489

if a whole science can't bear it's weight under fucking MATH, something is seriously fucking wrong.

>> No.3869503

Everything is built around addition if you deny that then you're fucking retarded.

Yes, even division, which can be expressed as multiplication, which can obviously be expressed as addition.

>> No.3869504

>>3869494
yes, something is wrong. with math. the mathematics available aren't good enough to describe what is really going on, hence the approximations. You never answered my question on what you studied, if anything.

>> No.3869505

>>3869485

divide a by b.... assuming a>b

for d=1 to a
r = a-b
if r<b then exit
next d

/* d=dividend....r=remainder....

Moron.

>> No.3869510

>>3869503
I just gave a counter-example.
>>3868872
And also set theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory
Has no notion at all of addition.
Which is used as the basis of nearly all higher complexity maths.

>> No.3869515

>>3869505
>reminder
Division is impossible to express by another operation IF the two divided number don't share a common factor. (two primes, for example)
Find one example that proves me wrong.
The furthest you can get is 7/11 = 7 * (1/11). You have to divide at this point though.

>> No.3869522

ITT: retards don't realize that computers calculate everything by adding. Even irrationals are just expressed as a Taylor expansion.

>> No.3869524

>>3869515

you are either a troll... or a complete idiot

>> No.3869529

OP is a troll, so forget about him. But the saddest thing about people like OP is that they're so fucking dumb, but they don't realize how fucking dumb they truly are.

They are on par with a creationist on their level of denial.

Science minded people are all about truth and rationality. Anyone lacking this type of thought process will be immediately ostracized from the community and left to rot posting retarded threads on the internet like a naive 12 year old.

>> No.3869530

>>3869503
actually

would you kindly express 0.3*7 with addition?

thanks <3

>> No.3869534

>Implying physics isn't just applied math
jesus fuck.

>> No.3869535

>>3869524
This is not /b/. I haven't used a single curse word in my post and if you're not actually going to set up a valid argument, I would like you not to call me names either.

>> No.3869539

>>3869530

you fuckin retard
.3+.3+.3+.3+.3+.3+.3 get off this fuckin board now

>> No.3869544

>>3869539
0.3*0.8?

>> No.3869548

3/2 = 3 + (-1.5)
How can you get the (-1.5) ?

Good luck using + to calculate Sin(Pi/3)

>> No.3869560

>>3869535

Computability and Logic
by George S. Boolos and Richard C. Jeffrey

read it.

>> No.3869561

>>3869548
i can calculate Sin(Pi/3) to any number of decimal places by using a Taylor polynomial. Polynomials can easily be solved using only adding.

>> No.3869570

>>3869560
You don't understand my point. We both clearly interpret "expression by addition" differently. You're using computers and algorithms. I'm not. It's possible in your case, it's impossible in mine.

>> No.3869643

How is no one noticing my points? And instead smashing there heads together in a unrelated argument.
>Math is adding.
Set theory is math. Therefore you should be able to do this with adding;
<span class="math"> \left \{ a,b,c \right \}\cap \left \{ a,b \right \} [/spoiler]

/thread
That's it, no more discussion.

>> No.3869730 [DELETED] 

>>3869643
{a,b,c} - {b,c}
u mad?

>> No.3869922

>>3869570

you don't have a point you are arguing from ignorance

>> No.3869925

>>3869922
And you just figured that out how?

>> No.3869942

>>3869922
No, I'm arguing because I have an opinion that differs from your and OP's opinion. Nobody has yet provided proof if this is actually true, so I guess it's okay to disagree.

>> No.3869963

Math pre-PhD here.

All math is x+y=z

I hope this clears things.

>> No.3870015

>>3869643
Assuming pure sets, you can map them to ordinal numbers (by transfinite recursion, but OP already uses recursion in his definition of * using +, so I guess it's ok), and define intersection using + and, again, transfinite recursion.

I'm far too lazy to try and formalize it, but it seems doable.

>> No.3870052

explain how 9/2 can be done with subtraction

specifically give me an algorithm to convert division to subtraction

>> No.3870077

>>3870052

we are not going to do your homework for you

>> No.3870156

>>3870015
Yeah that might work...if you can define the notion of a function between sets and ordinal numbers using addition.
/facepalm

>> No.3870264

>>3870077
He's just pointing out that division cannot be directly converted into substraction and therefore cannot be expressed as repeated addition.

>> No.3870272 [DELETED] 

Such ignorance.

Moot should rename this board bro/sci/ence

>> No.3871505

>>3870264

by 'pointing out' you mean... HE'S WRONG...we already did that. Take a fucking fundamentals of computing class

>> No.3871607

>>3868805
Addition is just repeated succession.
Succession is just taking the union of two sets.
Maths is just axiomatic set theory.

>> No.3871620

>>3870156
You know that's why I wrote "pure sets" and not just "sets", and you know about von Neumann's hierarchy, right? Cause I'm certainly not a set theory expert, but I'm pretty sure it's exactly what they do.

>> No.3871625

>>3871607
Usually, the successor of a set is defined as its power set. Union is "max".

>> No.3871627
File: 38 KB, 507x427, vader-fail.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3871627

>>3868805
How do you use adding to compare numbers?
No amount of adding will tell me if 3 is bigger or smaller then 4.

\thread

>> No.3871630

>>3871627
0<1
a<b => a+1<b+1
a<b => a<b+1

There you go, "<" defined with addition and recursion, the same way "*" was implicitely defined by OP (and I assume it was OK by you as you didn't point it out).

>> No.3871631
File: 4 KB, 120x141, laughbot.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3871631

>>3868805
Adding is an operation.
Mathematics is more then just the study of operations.

>> No.3871632

>>3871627
If a is a successor of b, then a>b

>> No.3871645
File: 27 KB, 396x349, this_thread_is_bad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3871645

>>3871630
The question is essentailly to prove the sucession of the natural numbers.

You however already assume 0<1.
THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE DIPSHIT.

Your proof is shit.

>> No.3871653
File: 19 KB, 373x273, 080725-office-fun-hmed-135p_hmedium.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3871653

>>3871632
And how do you define the concept of "a", "b" and "sucessor" with addition?

You said all math is just addition, right? So how do I define the mathematical concept of "varible" and "sucessor" using just repeated addition?

Hint: you can't

>> No.3871658
File: 119 KB, 390x390, 1301837411860.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3871658

>>3868805
Are you in 5th grade OP?

>> No.3871669
File: 3 KB, 300x239, failed.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3871669

>>3871632
How do you define the "bi-conditional" (If-Then logic) with just addition?

Hint: You can't

>> No.3871672

All math begins with counting. Addition is just a method of speeding up counting.

>> No.3871685

>>3871645
OP also needs initialization for its definition multiplication to work by recursion. In all my posts, I assume people are fine with OP's premises. Then, if I imitate them to define another operation, I don't really understand how my definitions can be criticized. Either say that OP can't define multiplication with just addition, or you must agree that he can also define <.

>> No.3871690

>>3871669
You mean "=>" ?
(a=>b) is (b or not a)
(b or not a) can be written as a set that contains every state of the variables such that (b or not a)'s is true.
Then, refer to >>3871620 >>3870015 etc for what set theory is.

>> No.3871691
File: 60 KB, 600x600, youre-fucking-retarded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3871691

>>3871672
>All math begins with counting

LMFAO. Sure is highschool in here.
A humans first experience with math begins with propositional logic, ie True/False statements. This has absolutly nothing to do with addition.

>> No.3871696

>>3871669
> system strong enough to describe addition
> no first-order logic
I suggest you publish your finding immediately.

>> No.3871705

only if you think all relations are really adding and math can't really be about anything but relations.

>> No.3871714
File: 109 KB, 500x400, retard-owls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3871714

>>3871685
>>3871690
Mathematics is just not about operation. It is about the elements and objects you operate on. OP's whole premise is shit.

1) All possiblly convievable operations to all possible objects cannot be reduced to "addition". Even the notion is fucking laughable.

2) Even if all operation could be reduced to addition. ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS SAY THAT ALL OPERATIONS ARE ADDITION. MATHEMATICS IS MORE THEN JUST THE STUDY OF OPERATION THOUGH.

>> No.3871715

>>3871672
What a fascinating insight. I assume this was one of the things you learned in last weeks Pre-Algebra class.

>> No.3871722
File: 93 KB, 485x563, you_fail-12825.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3871722

>>3868805
LMFAO.
How do I define the concept of rotation, or the ideas of group theory, using only addition?

>> No.3871729
File: 188 KB, 750x534, 1314445330165.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3871729

>>3871696
OP doesn't present a system that "leads" to addition. OP says "addition" is the system. You cannot use addition to reverse engineer a logic, it doesn't even make any fucking sense.

>> No.3871732

>>3871714
>Mathematics is just not about operation. It is about the elements and objects you operate on.
You obviously are not familiar with category theory.

Your point 1 is correct though.

>> No.3871734

>>3871714
Unifying mathematics and all of its objects over a small set of operations so that the other operations can be described not as new axioms, but using the existing ones, that's what set theory does, or that's what peano's arithmetics does for arithmetics.

The 2nd example defines all arithmetics with only a few axioms:
- 0 is a number,
- The operation "=" is an equivalence relation under which the set of natural numbers is closed,
- If x is a number, successor(x) is a natural number,
- There is no x such that successor(x)=0,
- successor(a)=successor(b) => a=b,
- and THIS is where it's getting interesting: if K is a set, that 0 is in K and that "n in K => successor(n) in K", then K contains every natural number.

That is enough to define addition, multiplication, division, etc. For instance, addition is defined by:
a+0=a
a+successor(b)=successor(a+b)

That's enough to define it thanks to the other axioms.

I hope this answers your question about why it's possible to reduce the number of axioms you need to do maths.

>> No.3871757

>>3871734
I think that is just Presberger arithmetic? Not strong enough for multiplication. Maybe I am misremembering Peano axiom schema.

>> No.3871803

>>3871757
No I think that's enough.
Also multiplication should be something like
a*1 = a
a*s(b) = a+a*b
a*b = b*a
or something like that.

Peano's axioms are on wikipedia for sure, I've read the page not long ago (I wouldn't have remembered all the axioms that fast otherwise, I like axiomatic maths but without a pen an a piece of paper, it's hard to know if you haven't forgotten something important).

>> No.3872994

Fascinating idea.
I never thought math as simply addition.

It makes sense but i dont have high math knowledge to validate it.

>> No.3873059

>>3871734
A binary relation on S is a subset of the Cartesian product SxS, what does it even mean to say that S is closed under the relation?