[ 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: 2 KB, 127x116, frog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5112051 No.5112051 [Reply] [Original]

einstein chose physics over math because he thought physics shows a more accurate picture of our reality

godel chose math over physics because he thought math shows a more accurate picture of truth in general

which is the superior position?

>> No.5112441

Einstein chose physics over math because physics was the only thing he was good at. He never achieved more than a very shallow understanding of freshman math. His colleagues made fun of him for not knowing enough math and he had to ask mathemiticians to write up the mathematical formulation of his theory.

>> No.5112445

They both equally importance. Stratification should be left to the more social aspects life.

>> No.5112459
File: 73 KB, 531x513, are-you-a-magnet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5112459

>>5112441

>> No.5112463

>>5112441
[fucking citation needed]

>> No.5112464

einstein failed at math. his physics theories dont have real math depth to it. it has some math, but not more than a 1st or second year student of math

>> No.5112466

>>5112464
this is a myth

>> No.5112467

>>5112464
Bibliography:
>Einstein for dummies

>> No.5112469

>>5112466
>>5112467
>confirmed for never having learned Einstein's theory

While the physical understanding requires some knowledge, the math of it can be understood by most highschoolers.

>> No.5112470

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1936731_1936743_1936758,00.html

>> No.5112471

>>5112469
>pretending you did

>> No.5112472

>>5112469
he never 'failed at math' and most 15 year olds aren't masters of integral calculus

>> No.5112476

>>5112472
>integrals
>hard math

How about you finish highschool before posting about things you don't understand?

>> No.5112481

Einstein was not as much of a genius as Tesla. Deal with it.

>> No.5112482

>>5112476
you're unnecessarily condescending, it is true most 15 year olds do not understand integral calculus. i doubt you did at age 15

>> No.5112489

>>5112482
What an unnecessary and infantile attack. I learned integral calculus at age 13 and it's in the school curriculum for 15 year olds.

>> No.5112487

>>5112481
Then why is Einstein synonym for genius?

Einstein 1
Tesla 0

>> No.5112490

they both probably had a number of personal reasons why they chose what they did
you can have yours too

>> No.5112492

>>5112489
in what country?
and how is that an attack?

>> No.5112495

>>5112487
Without Tesla we wouldn't have electricity and magnets.

Tesla: >9000
Einstine: 0

>> No.5112507

>>5112495
Einstein got the credits for his work.
Tesla didn't.

Einstein 2
Tesla 0

>> No.5112510

>>5112507
Flux density is measured in unit Tesla. Einstein doesn't even have a unit name after him.

Tesla: infinity
Einstein: 0

>> No.5112511

>>5112507
yea mainly due to the one of the worst and biggest asshole of a 'Scientist' (but a great businessman), Edison.

>> No.5112513

>>5112510
Einsteinium is an element.
Teslaium isn't.

Einstein 3
Tesla 0

>> No.5112515

>>5112513
Tesla predicted string theory and FTL neutrinos.

Tesla: infinity divided by zero
Einstein: zero divided by infinity

>> No.5112516

>>5112515
Einstein said, "If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew."

Tesla didn't.

Einstein 4
Tesla 0

>> No.5112518

>>5112515
ok can we end the shitposting here? i don't know how this can get worse

>> No.5112528

>>5112516
Tesla developed technology so awesome that the government has to hide it from us.

Tesla: infinity + 1
Enstein: 1 - 0.9999...

>>5112518
Trust me. It can.

>> No.5112531

reality or truth

which is the superior position?

truth

taken alone, math trumps physics.

but what we really need to find is the truth about our reality.

math + physics

>> No.5112533
File: 54 KB, 400x269, stop-having-fun.png.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5112533

>>5112528
T'was fun while it lasted, anon.

>> No.5112550

>>5112495
>wouldn't have magnets
of course, because magnets simply did not exist until the mighty god Tesla created them

>> No.5112558

you know a lot of these guys are wrong

all of our heroes and idols. einstein, maxwell, newton, lucretius, feynman. all of them.

they all have flaws in their theories that we haven't found yet. they are all wrong in more ways than we ever admit. every century we learn more and find out how wrong we were in the past.

we build on basic principles, sure. but these men that we worship as gods of logic and truth are not completely correct.

no one ever will be.

>> No.5112569

>>5112558
Although it is true that, as technology progresses, knowledge is refined. But you can't just dismiss what the scientific method has contributed to humanity in understanding its environment by saying "lol we were wrong in the past, therefore what we know in the present will be wrong in the future". I see it more as a log curve than a linear function.

>> No.5112661

First of course.

Physics = reality.
Math = a tool for physics.
If maths tries to describe the world alone u get a bullshit called
String Theory

>> No.5112704

Math because who cares about realities' bullshit.
Breakthroughs in science don't translate to breakthroughs in mathematics anyways.

>> No.5112710

Superior position? Math gets very complicated if you learn more and more. Physics gets easier and easier if you learn more and more, however the problem with physics is the subject is very big and those without adequate knowledge wont have a good central grasp of physics. Its simple, but has many branches that you need to learn before understanding the simplicity of it. Math gets more and more complicated at every corner

>> No.5112713

>>5112710
Actually, math does get easier and easier after you get beyond basics in several branches. It's commonly referred to as an inverse tower of babel for this reason.

>> No.5112714

None, if you love abstraction, then you go for maths, If you like to know how the universe works, then you go for physics. If you enjoy men, you go for engineering.

>> No.5112715

physics is a science and math is an art

>> No.5112716

>>5112714
Where did this gays in engineering thing come from?

>> No.5112719

Op, just think what the modern mathematics turned into

>> No.5112721

>>5112716
I think it's the dick-sucking course prereqs in most engineering programs

>> No.5112726
File: 87 KB, 573x493, 1347329147673.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5112726

>>5112721

>mad at our $500,000 Dubai starting salaries

>> No.5112731

>>5112716
short story:
>most of /sci/ is either engineers or engineering students
> bee raids /sci/ with engineers are faggots reaction images and gay porn
>high schoolers and newfags think it's a meme
>gradually becomes a meme of sorts because summerfags and most people are faggots

>> No.5112733

>>5112051
the superior position is the superposition

>> No.5112734

Where did these platonist mathfaggots come from ?

>> No.5112749

>>5112734
We've always been here. I think we've probably been posting more in your science threads because so many mathfag threads are being deleted nowadays under the premise of homework thread. I'm not saying that there aren't a fuckload of homework threads out there, just that sciencefags can't tell the difference between a math question that would be related to homework and a math question that can't possibly be related to math homework in any way.

>> No.5112751

>that feel when your major is psychology

>> No.5112752

>>5112734
/sci/ is always filled with dogmatic platonist who cry foul at anyone disagree with their materialism

>> No.5112754

>>5112752
> platonism = materialism

wut ?

>> No.5112755

>>5112734
Yeah, it's they who cant into discussions always strarting every
sentence with "u re insult hurr my sides durr"

And these are mathfags ? Dog's excrement, not mathfags

>> No.5112757

>>5112754
cognitive dissonance is present in the minds of all people. /sci/ is no exception

>> No.5112762

>>5112757
I'm not so strong in phylosophy but read a couple of tens of books on it
so I suggest platonism = a type of idealism.

Gödel's theorems show this thing exactly that you either agree, that
maths is kind of approximation to the real world or you imply
math structures live "outside", so idealism.

Mathfags then choose the second variant, since they love their subject
so much till inadequacy.

Engineer fags are easy with their subjects and their mentality

>> No.5112763

>>5112515
>FTL neutrinos
Didn't happen you dumb faggot.

>> No.5112772

>>5112762
No, mathematical platonism is nothing like philosophical platonism. It talks strictly about mathematics, not about the rest of the world.

The idea goes back to the foundational crisis of mathematics in the late 1800s. Well, actually, to explain properly you kind of have to go back further as there were a large number of developments in mathematics that changed fundamentally what mathematics was. See, before then people believed that mathematics were an approximation of the real world. That only mathematics relating to the real world could even be legitimate and that anything else would inherently not be self consistent. Then there came breakthroughs in algebra (what separate classical algebra from modern algebra), and breakthroughs in geometry (the realization that several non-euclidean geometric spaces could be consistent and legitimate in mathematics but have no bearing on the real world whatsoever). This caused many mathfags to argue amongst themselves over mathematics actually were. Many mathfags sought to "found" the mathematics on something else. The formalists wanted to found it on logic and set theory and thereby reduce it to a man made system of symbols from which arguments could be derived. They wanted to make it both consistent and complete but godel (a platonist mathematician himself) proved through the incompleteness theorems that any system founded on logic could not be both consistent and complete.

continued in next post

>> No.5112780

>>5112772
There were two other groups at the time. The intuitionists wanted to found the mathematics on subjective reality. They argued that many things like using the excluded middle in arguments over infinite sets could not be done. In many ways they were more rigorous than formalists, but for many reasons also unpopular. Brouwer for example wanted to found it on the individuals subjective perception of time (treating time as a sort of number line, if you will). He lived in isolation for many years and would occasionally make announcements that he was drawing close to a breakthrough but they would ultimately fail. He died alone after being run over outside his house late one night.

The platonist perspective is different. That mathematics are inherent in reality itself and the mathematics we do are a man made approximation of the real mathematics.

These two other foundations sidestep the issue of godel's incompleteness theorems because of how they found it.

All three are still practiced at varying degrees. However, since godel gutted formalism, intuitionism never really caught on, and platonism is in some ways 'unfoundable' then the crisis just sort of died out. There are other ideologies in mathematics but they're not as well known and weren't really involved during the foundational crisis.

continued in next post

>> No.5112783

>>5112780

Some things have come of this though. Most of mathematics are still done more or less the same way regardless of the ideology you adhere to (except in some issues relating mostly to set theory).

For mathematicians it affects mostly 'mathematical morality', but I'm not going to explain that here. There's a somewhat popular philosphy of math paper circulating out there that explains it in layman terms. You can find it through google. Overall, the reason you have so many mathematical platonists is probably because it allows them to sidestep most of the pitfalls of mathematics and to at the same time claim computer sciencefags are largely irrelevant to their field.

>> No.5112791

As much as you'd like to dress up the concept, its at the heart a platonic idealism. Which is pure BS.

>> No.5112792

>>5112791

No, because it doesn't have anything to do with the real world, and neither does mathematics.

>> No.5112797

Naivefag here. Can I be both an intuitionfag and a platonicfag? I think there is a conceptual math which we know of and which is determined partially by how our brains evolved but it's also based on the implications of axiomatic systems, which would not be related to our brains.

>> No.5112801

Why do people still believe theres a math bag which the mathematicians draw math formulas from? Are people that stupid?

>> No.5112804

>>5112801
>Fails to understand the fundamental difference between mathematical platonism and platonism in general.
>Asks if people are stupid.

>> No.5112805

>>5112804
>show no evidence that shows the difference between those two

>> No.5112809

>>5112805
>Asking a mathematician for evidence.
>2012

>> No.5112813

>>5112792
You're quite dense, aren't you? Platonic idealism is not restricted to the real world and in fact proposes that there's more than the real world alone.

>>5112797
Axiomatic systems are related to our brain. Our brain is a deterministic quantum computer following axiomatic rules.

>>5112804
Idiot. He was referring to formalism.

>> No.5112814

>>5112809
>implying a platonic wont be able to pull those answers from the metaphysical mathbag

>> No.5112815

>>5112813
Everything you said is wrong and this is the reason w-oh wait, it's just Carl.

2/10

>> No.5112816

>>5112772
>>5112780
>>5112783
Good job btw. I remember talking to you on /q/. You are the faggot obsesses with the philosophy of math and you told me that since pure philosophy threads are bannable you intend to derail existing threads with philosophy. Nicely done.

>> No.5112818

>>5112815
Everything I said is correct. Your lack of counterarguments is showing. Does it really hurt so much to admit that you were wrong? You don't even need to explicitly say you were wrong. You could just say I was right. Come on, hun. ;)

>> No.5112819

>>5112816
I said no such thing and do consider philosophy threads cancer.

>> No.5112822

>>5112819
>I find philosophy threads cancer
>that's why derail a science thread with walls of text about philosophy

Cool story, bro. Are you an intuitionist to deny the excluded middle?

>> No.5112825

Ok whhere does the 'quasi-empiricism' fit in then?

>> No.5112826

>>5112815
Btw there is no "wrong" in philosophy. Everything is right as long as you accept the assumptions.

>> No.5112829

>>5112825
There is none. Mathematics is not really empirical.

>>5112797
It doesn't really matter in most cases. Just believe whatever it is you want to, there's no reason to put a label on it. In set theory people do put labels on it due to ZFC and its many alternatives, but otherwise just fucken do math.

>> No.5112832

>>5112829
But Penrose told me it is.

>> No.5112835 [DELETED] 

>>5112829
>posts labels
>tells others not to use them

Philosophy at its best, once again.

>>5112825
Funnily you could use quasi-empiricism to argue that biology is a purer science than physics. Physics relies too much on quasi-empirical inference through mathematical models, this inference itself not relating to physical reality anymore. Like a magic box giving results coincidentally having a meaning in nature again. Biology on the other hand by its avoidance of higher math stays purely empirical.

>> No.5112887

/sci/ / /math/ split anyone?

>> No.5112895
File: 16 KB, 200x300, reaction sad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5112895

>>5112887
While I would like this, our board overall moves too slow for us to survive without each other.

>> No.5112922

>Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.

Albert Einstein

>> No.5112938
File: 19 KB, 480x353, 484426_254486154661614_627213952_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5112938

>>5112489
0/10

>> No.5112945

>>5112887

The boards would be even more incredibly slow than this one already is. Also /math/ would inevitably become /homework/, sadly.

>> No.5112952

>>5112938
>everyone must be as stupid as I am

>> No.5112955

>>5112945
not necessarily since none of the science questions would be allowed. So a great deal of /homework/ would still be bound to /sci/ just as a portion would be bound to /math/.

>> No.5112957

>>5112955
But 95% of the homework posted here is math homework.

>> No.5112960

physics suck, its all decorating formulas and shit

for math you actually gotta think

>> No.5112975

>>5112957
A lot of it isn't considered math homework by mathfags.

Thing is that when mathfags hang out a lot of what they talk about isn't just conceptual stuff leaving the mathematics in the details (the way sciencefags talk). It's the other way around asking questions about the mathematics and leaving the applications in the details. So when a mathfag asks another mathfag what an interesting way to work through a problem is it's more or less the same as when a physicsfag asks a physicsfag what an interesting way to think about what is going on in a phenomenon.

It is different when someone posts just wanting the answers to their stuff, but I would wager most of those are sciencefags and engineeringfags who really don't care if they understand the mathematics or not.

>> No.5112996

>>5112975
Here's an example of one of those ambiguous "homework" threads that I grabbed off the front page.

>>5111964

Looks like someone bumped it from 9 hours ago, but that wasn't me. It's not even a very good example since no one has posted in it claiming it's a homework thread as is usually the case with such things.

>> No.5113018

Physics without math is impossible.
Math without the world to apply it to is pointless.

>> No.5113022

>>5113018
>Math without the world to apply it to is pointless.
not to mathfags.

>> No.5113032

>>5112975
Do you have any idea how /math/ would look like? 90% of it would be "solve for x" and calculus homework. The rest would be troll math like 0.99..., number mysticism and kids asking for the best calculus textbook.

How often do we have actual math threads on /sci/? Twice a year?

>> No.5113043

>>5113032
Those things wouldn't be bound to /math/ they would also be in /sci/ if they were split. We'd actually have math threads though instead of getting drowned out by
>why did africans not evolve/what does /sci/ think about eugenics/every poorly disguised political science thread
>how can you believe in evolution if it's just a theory (a geuss)
>economics threads
>Faster than light/time travel/perpetual motion "hypothesis" due to a poor or in-existent understanding of relativity.
>Is time the fourth dimension/can there be more than 3 dimensions/other garbage threads caused by a poor understanding of science
>shrodingers cat explained by a cute girl in a video
>I'm bad at math but wanna become an astrophysicist/astronaut/whatever can I do it?
>Threads about AI caused entirely due to a poor understanding of machine learning algorithms and other AI topics
>Threads asking about consciousness with no understanding of any of the related topics.
etc..

Most of the science threads here are actually just idiots asking retarded shit because of the retarded shit they've been told in pop science articles.

>> No.5113046

>>5113043
The board you're looking for already exists. It's called stackexchange.
On 4chan you have to deal with huge amounts of shitposting and no board split will solve this.

>> No.5113049

>>5113046
>stackexchange
>not garbage

You can't even post images there. Besides, they mainly deal with computer stuff and they haven't even invented a sorting algorithm (4chan has).