[ 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: 21 KB, 1104x370, sciences.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5115340 No.5115340 [Reply] [Original]

>> No.5115343

>comp sci above biology

>> No.5115344

OP fag confirmed for materials fag.

>> No.5115345

>>5115344
mathfag master race
Did you know that God is a mathematician?

>> No.5115350

>material science harder than chemistry
LMFAO

>> No.5115351

Political Science shouldn't even be in the spectrum. If any research is done whatsoever in that field, it is through sociology or psychology studies alone.

>> No.5115356

>>5115351
has science in the name. Sociology shouldn't either, but it has ology

>> No.5115355

>>5115350
>>material science harder than chemistry
Material science is basically chem + physics

>> No.5115369

>>5115356

Though I don't think a lot of the research in sociology is with merit... they at least attempt research. Sociology is an aspect of Psychology. PS is a very specific area that uses studies of sociology and psychology. It's like saying Business is a science, because it uses math.

>> No.5115373

>>5115355
aka applied chemistry/physics

>> No.5115376

I don't see how you can have something like biology so low. Sure you don't do pure math, but genome sequencing and microbiology are what is increasing the lifespan of humanity and bettering life.

>> No.5115379

>>5115376
hardness != how much utility it brings society

>> No.5115398

biology studies complex systems

physicists study simpliest systems

checkmate

>> No.5115399

>>5115398
Biology doesn't study any systems. Biology studies the techniques to memorize a dull set of observations.

>> No.5115402

>>5115399
A dull set of observations that are keeping Physicists alive.

>> No.5115410

>tfw earth science (petroleum geology)
>tfw degree is easy as shit
>tfw making more money than all of you

Earth Science is God tier. Deal w/ it deluded 300k/yr math PhD faggots.

>> No.5115418

>>5115402
Nope. That's the physical laws governing the biological processes.

>> No.5115420

>>5115350
same, that made me fucking roll.

>>5115410
Bitch, I am a chemist. I make my own fun.

>> No.5115423

Where would philosophy go?

>> No.5115424

>>5115418
You're an idiot if you're not trolling.

>> No.5115429

>>5115424
Resorting to ad hominem? You're a cute biologist.

>> No.5115431

>>5115423
far right

>> No.5115433

What is the criteria for determining if a science is 'hard'?

And maths isn't a science, it doesn't use the scientific method. It's its own thing.

>> No.5115434

>>5115431
Nope. Philosophy has no mathematical rigor. Try again.

>> No.5115448

>>5115434
technically both maths and (correct) Philosophy deal with logic, which is the highest form of rigor.

Though I think if anything Philosophy would be left of Maths. In fact, everything that isn't maths should be scrunched on the left for emphasis.

>> No.5115449

>>5115434
Mathematics is a sub-branch of philosohpy. Mathematical rigor is a philosophical idea. Try harder, troll.

>> No.5115451

>>5115433
All science is a subset of maths, so I think this "difficulty" mapping is valid for some of maths.

>> No.5115471

>>5115448
Philosophy and logic are not mutually exclusive. There are many illogical things in philosophy.

>> No.5115473

>>5115449
You fail basic logic, subhuman. The implication <span class="math">A\Rightarrow B[/spoiler] is not <span class="math">A-B[/spoiler] symmetric. Get off the science board.

>> No.5115475

>>5115451
Mathematics is the hardest science. Anyone who states otherwise is a troll.

>> No.5115483

>>5115473
>A\Rightarrow B
Jesus just say it in english, don't even feign knowledge of logical connectives with your shitty compsci understanding

>> No.5115493

>>5115473
You fail at logic AND reading comprehension. I never said implications were bidirectional. lrn2 set inclusion.

>> No.5115508

>>5115493
I don't know why people think you're this universal /sci/ troll, you clearly know more about most that even try to shit up this board with non-maths.

>> No.5115509

>CompSci bellow chemistry and earth science

none of you fuckers written a compiler and optimized algorithms, did you ?

>> No.5115510

>>5115483
This is the science and math board. Computer science belongs in >>>/prog/. English can be ambiguous - mathematics is a language for a reason. Freshman swine like you will never publish maths.

>> No.5115513

>>5115493
Get off this board, child. Set inclusion has nothing to do with this. Nice fallacy. It isn't my fault you can't decipher your own garbage. Your claim is that mathematical rigor is a philosophical idea, therefore philosophy must contain mathematical rigor to the highest degree. This is a failure of basic logic.

>> No.5115514

>>5115508
Cute samefag.

>> No.5115516

>>5115509
Computer science has no mathematical rigor. Programming is not mathematics.

>> No.5115521

>>5115516
Are you nigga fo real ?

CompSci is the purest form of applied math. I don't think that you have to just sit and think about problem for two days to come up with solution in chemistry.

Tree traversing, categorization, decision making, AI, it's all just applied math.

>> No.5115523

>>5115513
>philosophy doesn't contain its own ideas
>a set doesn't contain its subsets

Very cool story. Tell that to your math teacher and receive and instant F.

>> No.5115525

>>5115521
Applied maths is not maths. It's applied. Applied math has no rigor. Are you competent in grade school English? Apparently not.

>> No.5115528

What makes biology soft? Sure, it may not use very advanced mathematics, but it is still based on rigorous experimentation.

>> No.5115529

>>5115525
Look in to sorting algorithms for example. http://www.sorting-algorithms.com/ and think how programmers used absolutely no rigor to come with quickest algorithms like heap or quick sort

>> No.5115530

>>5115523
Non sequitur.

A subset <span class="math">B[/spoiler] of <span class="math">A[/spoiler] has elements with the property
<div class="math">x\in B \Rightarrow x\in A</div>

Maybe you should go back to middle school.

>> No.5115533

>>5115528
Experimentation does not equate to mathematical rigor.

>> No.5115535

>>5115521
>I don't think that you have to just sit and think about problem for two days to come up with solution in chemistry.

You confirmed for not knowing shit about chemistry. Before wasting money on failed expensive experiments they will think fucking hard to theoretically justify their proposed synthesis. Your ignorance is showing. You're most likely a delusional freshman.

>> No.5115536

>>5115529
This is not mathematical rigor. This is neckbeared garbage. You do not understand what mathematical rigor is. Do not post irrelevant things.

>> No.5115544

>>5115528
Nothing is soft about biology. Biology has the purest form of empiricism. By avoiding higher math biologists deal with nothing but experimental facts, while physicists use quasi-empirical methods of deriving results via long manipulations of math (half of which isn't even rigorously defined from a mathematical point of view).

>>5115530
What shitty troll are you?

>> No.5115548

>>5115398
This. The difficulty in Biology is precisely that you can't just drop a ball, say, and measure the speed or whatever. Experiments in Biology are difficult to set up and difficult to interpret.
Also, I suspect that the tree-hugging side of Biology takes down the average a bit. But what can one do?

>> No.5115549

>>5115449
Mathematics may be a sub-branch of philosophy. So, part of philosophy belongs on this chart. The rest of it, most of it, the parts that we commonly identify as "philosophy", is nowhere on the chart at as, as most of it is complete bullshit.

>> No.5115553

>>5115544
>projection
What's your problem? Can't argue against fact? You are too naive and simple-minded to understand basic logic. Back to >>>/x/.

>> No.5115554

>>5115549
Philosophy governs all of this chart and much more beyond. It is therefore the most fundamental of all sciences.

>> No.5115555

>>5115553
>logic

You're using this word again. If you took a formal logic class, I'm sure you'd fail. Have you even finished highschool?

>> No.5115556

>>5115548
This is wrong. You cannot time evolve observations, you can only memorize them. You are lacking the basic prerequisites for a system.

>> No.5115561

>>5115554
>philosophy (in general) is a science
Nope.
Under the most common usage of science - that being inductive reasoning on evidence - nope.

>> No.5115565

>>5115555
>projecting again
Avoiding the question because it's too sensitive? Are you afraid of telling people you'll never be a real scientist because you can't into babby's first maths?

Come back when you have a real argument.

>> No.5115567

>>5115561
Maybe you understand the "simple" version of wikipedia.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
>It is a science and an art.

>> No.5115573

>>5115567
As I said, under the most common definition of science - that being inductive reasoning on evidence - philosophy in general is not science.

Under less common definitions of science like that wiki quote, it is a science. Insofaras it is the study of something or a collection of "knowledge", it is a science.

A majority of practiced philosophy is not falsifiable, and is frankly mental masturbation not worth a damn.

>> No.5115574

>>5115544
Experiments are nothing without a theory to test, e.g. a model of a process. If you're not testing mathematical relations between variables in your model then what are your testing? Also: statistics always.

>> No.5115576

>>5115565
>projecting projections

I see what you failed there.

>> No.5115583

>>5115576
>implying failure
Where's your evidence?

>> No.5115589

>>5115410
Have fun post 2025

>> No.5115592

>>5115556
Evolve observations? Do you mean observations of evolution?
If so, you can quantify and measure evolution in a lab. You can also match morphology with molecular phylogenetics and get a predictive system. Not to mention, evolution is only one aspect of Biology (although an important one, see "light of evolution" quote).
I don't think you realise that all of this stuff had to be figured out and tested rigorously, just like anything in the hard sciences.

>> No.5115593

>>5115573
Falsifiability is an outdated idea and only applies to very few theories. Quasi-empirical methods are used everywhere in science and that's nothing new.

>>5115574
>then what are your testing?
A non-mathematical hypothesis obviously. Duh.

>>5115583
Anon, you're trying to find satisfaction in life by trolling on the internet. Please reconsider your choices.

>> No.5115596

>>5115593
Out of arguments, troll? Your insults are meaningless.

>> No.5115601

>>5115593
>Falsifiability is an outdated idea and only applies to very few theories. Quasi-empirical methods are used everywhere in science and that's nothing new.
If you wish to be pedantic, whatever. None of that applies to philosophy. For most kinds of philosophy, they are entirely independent of evidence, but unlike math they try to make factual empirical physical claims.

>> No.5115603

>>5115596
>dat irony

lel

>> No.5115612

>>5115601
>independent of evidence
>make factual empirical physical claims

U wot m8? Show me one example.

>> No.5115613

>>5115592
This is irrelevant. Why are you posting such nonsensical irrelevant things? Any Poisson manifold with a positive eigenvalue in the bilinear form that is equipped with a vector field will generate time evolution. Can measurements in biology reproduce this simple mathematical fact?

>> No.5115614

>>5115603
Irony has nothing to do with this. Are you upset that simple logic has proven you wrong?

>> No.5115615

>>5115612
Anything that isn't "math and logic" and "the use of inductive reasoning on evidence" aka science.

>> No.5115629

>>5115614
>hurr durr durr
Put some more effort in your "trolling".

>>5115615
Not an example. Show me a "factual empirical physical claim independent of evidence". You know that's a fucking contradiction.

>> No.5115641

>>5115629
I am not a troll. You have yet to prove your claim that philosophy is mathematically rigorous.

>> No.5115649

>>5115641
That was never my claim. You fail so bad at logic and reading comprehension, it's hilarious.

>> No.5115660

>math
>hard
You do know its purely conceptual right?

The only hard science are those in the middle. The further off you go, you return to soft science

>> No.5115690

>>5115649
Nope. You made a claim in >>5115431, and you have yet to prove it. All you've done so far is spew insults and affirm the consequent. Congrats, shitposter.

>> No.5115695

>>5115660
This is wrong. Mathematics contains much more than your childish definition of "conceptual". You do not know what hard science is.

>> No.5115697

>>5115690
Project harder, you flaming troll. I proved all my claims. What you quoted has nothing to do with mathematical rigor btw.

>> No.5115712

>>5115695
Math has no real world connection. All it can do is make conceptual formulas and proofs and try to relate it to real world. There is no actual real world<-> math connection

>> No.5115734

>>5115712

>implying mathematics isn't reality in its purest form

>> No.5115741

>>5115697
You have proven none of your claims. Where is your propositional calculus?

The hardness of a science is a measure of its mathematical rigor. You are both a shitposter and a strawman.

>> No.5115743

>>5115734
Here, let me try this on you. What does it mean for "1 + 1 = 2"? Are you saying that if I put 1 apple next to another apply, it makes 2 apples? Sometimes, sometimes not. Sometimes when I put two pieces of matter together, 1+1=3 or 1+1=3/2. Mass is not conserved in nuclear reactions.

Let's talk about speeds? Suppose someone drops a reference mass, accelerates from 0 to 10 m/s, drops another reference mass, and accelerates to be another 10 m/s faster. How fast is it going now compared to the first reference mass? 20 m/s? Nope. Speeds don't add.

Platonic Idealists are retards who haven't even bothered to think through their conclusions.

>> No.5115744
File: 21 KB, 1104x370, 13492511942302.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5115744

Fixed that for you

>> No.5115747

>>5115712
You are a pathetic anti-science troll. Mathematics is the real world around us, it does not "relate" to anything. Are you denying that the real world follows mathematical laws, e.g. the Lorentz invariance or Maxwell's equations? The exact description is always given in the language called mathematics - it's how the world actually works - vague "descriptions" in biology or anything else that you use is just a rough, approximate sketch. It is less accurate, less real, inferior, and less important than the exact truth that can only be expressed in terms of mathematics.

>> No.5115751

>>5115741
>Where is your propositional calculus?
Please prove that I need one.

>The hardness of a science is a measure of its mathematical rigor
Nope.

>> No.5115753

>>5115747
The anon to which you reply, is not. He's right. Mathematics is a figment of our imagination. It's an artefact of formal logic. We designed it and created it because it has utility in describing the "real world", but any further claim is retarded. One never advances math by finding evidence.

>> No.5115766

>>5115747
No its not. There is no such thing as 1,2,3,4,5 etc in real world. There are no formulas in real world, there are no patterns in real world, there are no proofs in real world. All of them work only in the conceptual framework on math. Its purely idealism

>> No.5115781
File: 35 KB, 1530x370, 1349251194230.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5115781

Fixed.

>> No.5115797

>>5115743
>What does it mean for "1 + 1 = 2"? Are you saying that if I put 1 apple next to another apply, it makes 2 apples?
Arithmetic.

>Sometimes, sometimes not.
Are you claiming there exists mathematical inconsistencies in our world? Please demonstrate one to me.

>Sometimes when I put two pieces of matter together, 1+1=3 or 1+1=3/2.
This is pure, mindless drivel. How old are you?

>Mass is not conserved in nuclear reactions.
Conservation of mass is a derived, not fundamental symmetry of some physical system. The mass-energy equivalence is the latter, being a consequence of a fiberwise Legendre transform to the invariant of the isometry group of spacetime.

>Let's talk about speeds? Suppose someone drops a reference mass, accelerates from 0 to 10 m/s, drops another reference mass, and accelerates to be another 10 m/s faster. How fast is it going now compared to the first reference mass? 20 m/s?
This is a pathetic troll. Taking into account trivial classical momentum conservation and the deacceleration will lead you to the correct result.

>Speeds don't add.
Except they do. This is evident with basic representation theory of the spacetime isometry group. More trivial high school physics knowledge and basic facts about reality you appear to be neglecting.

>> No.5115800

>>5115751
Yes it is, strawman. Abusing definitions is childish nonsense.

>> No.5115801

everything that ends on logy should end on scammy.

>> No.5115803

this thread is now about coping with mathematical inferiority

>> No.5115804

>>5115753
Mathematics that describes the real world around is always being *discovered*. This verb is correct - and the verb "designed" is incorrect - simply because, as I've already hinted, the real world has obviously followed the same mathematical laws long before they were realized by any human. "We" have just discovered something that has existed before "us": "we" didn't construct a new thing, for example Edison's phonograph, so it is manifestly incorrect to use the verb "designed". Nature does not care about your inventions.

>> No.5115805

>>5115800
Where did I ever abuse definitions?

>> No.5115806

>>5115766
Nope. Your statement is illogical at every conceivable level. Let's start here: tell me how science makes predictions.

>> No.5115810

>>5115805
The hardness of a science is a measure of its mathematical rigor. This is a definition.

>> No.5115809

>>5115797
Please explain to me using pure reason and math and logic, without looking at the real world, how you might know that 1 apple + 1 apple sometimes doesn't equal 2 apples, but if you take into account mass and energy, that a very specific "sum" of them is conserved?

> >Speeds don't add.
>Except they do.
Someone needs to learn some relativity.

>> No.5115812

>>5115804
Please explain to me how someone thousands of years ago would know that Euclid's Geometry is incorrect, and some crazy geometry extended from Lorentz transformations is actually correct. (Assuming that relativity is even fully correct, which it may not be.)

>> No.5115815

I think it needs to be clarified that this so called "hardness" scale is only really based on getting a basic Bachelors degree. Pushing the boundries of any field is difficult, and being the top in any given field is equally hard. Think about it, someone who has devoted literally their entire life to studying something.. is it a famous professor of biology? is it a famous theoretical physicist? The creme de la creme.

>> No.5115843

>>5115810
>This is a definition.

A wrong definition.

>> No.5115870

>>5115809
>Please explain to me using pure reason and math and logic, without looking at the real world, how you might know that 1 apple + 1 apple sometimes doesn't equal 2 apples, but if you take into account mass and energy, that a very specific "sum" of them is conserved?
Your comment is a constant stream of nonsense. You cannot do this, you must look at the real world. Arithmetic is empirical.

>Someone needs to learn some relativity.
How pathetic. Do you even know what you're spewing? What you write is crackpottery that makes no sense. You do not even need special relativity for this. Roll a ball on some table. While it is rolling, hit it in the direction of movement. What happens?

For the relativistic case, again, trivial representation theory of <span class="math">ISO(3,1)[/spoiler] gives you the boosts and rapidity, which is then reduced to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_theory_of_relativity

>> No.5115874

>>5115812
What a silly laymen misconception. Euclidean geometry, combined with the typical Galilean affine transformations between reference frames, is an exact description of reality at low velocities. <span class="math">ISO(3,1)[/spoiler] reduces to the Galilean group when you take a <span class="math">c\to\infty[/spoiler] limit. This is seen empirically. It is not an approximation; special relativity becomes valid at a completely different scale. This inference is a basic fact about all of physics. Another example is the <span class="math">\hbar\to 0[/spoiler] limit of quantum mechanics. There are countless others. Existing physics never changes, physics only builds upon experiment.

>> No.5115876

Why do idiots (I know it's a joke on /sci/, but there really seem to be people who believe this) think biology is a soft science?
Do you actually grasp the fuckton of data they collect to model their theories?

And mathemtics isn't even a science.

>> No.5115879

>>5115877
You're burden of proof. Care to elaborate on why it isn't wrong?

>> No.5115877

>>5115843
Nope. Care to elaborate on why it is wrong?

>> No.5115881

>>5115876
It is the hardest of all sciences. You are the idiot.

I'll be back in a couple of hours.

>> No.5115884

>>5115879
It is your burden of proof. You made the claim.

>> No.5115883

>>5115876
Because it doesnt get us anywhere. When was the last time biology made a noticible discovery? Its purely shit. It was good 100 years ago or so, but now the industry has slowed down to a crawl

>> No.5115885

>>5115883
heh. You funny man. I kill you last.

>> No.5115887

>>5115870
You're not answering my basic question. You want to claim that math is more than a useful fiction man invented and designed. You want to claim that math is "special". The purposes of my questions is to highlight "which math?".

Hundreds of years ago, everyone knew Euclid's Geometry was "correct" and described the "real world". Today we know that that is wrong. It's only an approximation. In fact it's some crazy geometry based on Lorentz transformations. Who's to say that tomorrow we won't find out the geometry of relativity itself is an approximation? It seems plausible given the problem of rectifying relativity with quantum mechanics.

I say again - math is a fiction that we invented. Logic and math allow us to create useful models. If you want to claim something more, you first have to define your claim sufficiently rigorously that you can be proven wrong. If you cannot, then you are not only not even right - you are not even wrong.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

>> No.5115889

>>5115884
Whatever, fag. I'll explain it anyway. The hardness of a science is determined by how empirical it is. Biology is purely empirical, physics employs quasi-empirical methods as well (e.g. inference from mathematical theories).

>> No.5115893

>>5115877
From the Wiki page:
"[...]with hard meaning perceived as being more scientific, rigorous, or accurate."

Not directly about mathematics.

>>5115881
It's not. Troll on.
>>5115883
Trollolo.

>> No.5115899

>>5115885
>>5115893
There is a grain of truth in it. If I was blatantly wrong, you'd call me out on it. But I'm not which is why you chose to label my post as a troll instead of arguing over the points I've made.

>> No.5115901

>>5115815
This is true. Plus, no one even cares about this "hardness scale" outside of the internet, outside of acknowledging that the sciences are harder than the humanities.

>> No.5115919

>>5115899
First of, how far a science "gets us" is irelevant for its hardness. Read the wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

Relevant is the scientific rigor it is persued with and the predictability that its theories provides, with which biology is on par with physics and chemistry.

Secondly, genes, virology, cancer research, biomechanics, bio engineering, ecology.

Do any of these words mean something to you?

>> No.5117690

>>5115887
>You're not answering my basic question.
I have, apparently reading comprehension is very difficult for you!

>Hundreds of years ago, everyone knew Euclid's Geometry was "correct" and described the "real world". Today we know that that is wrong.
You did not even read my post. What you write is pseudoscientific rubbish and breathtakingly dishonest subhuman activist garbage.

>It's only an approximation.
As I've already stated, a <span class="math">v\to\infty[/spoiler] limit of the isometry group of spacetime leads to your typical Galilean transformations. Do the kindergarten algebra yourself and plug velocities into the non-relativistic case, and the relativistic case. There is absolutely no difference in the results at low velocities. You are a crackpot.

>Who's to say that tomorrow we won't find out the geometry of relativity itself is an approximation?
You have a fundamental misconception of what physics, or rather what science, is. You spew this misleading pseudoscience and lies but every highschooler with IQ above 70 - everyone who is not technically an idiot - is capable to see through this mist. Existing observations do not change. Galilean invariance is not an "approximation", it is an exact symmetry at its relevant scale.

To answer your question, though, there is nothing above this symmetry, Lorentz symmetry - as it valid at distances 100 times smaller than the Planck scale, see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08574.html

This was implied by gauge theory even before the experimental data came in. At scales much shorter than the spacetime curvature, the spacetime coordinates are inevitably <span class="math">d+1[/spoiler] free fields on the theory, and the manifest <span class="math">SO(d,1)[/spoiler] global symmetry respected by these fields - even during the interactions - automatically implies the Lorentz symmetry at high energies in spacetime.

>> No.5117693

>I say again - math is a fiction that we invented.
Your argument is baseless and you are simply repeating yourself. Your drivel is not compatible with physics or science. You are a pseudointellectual who has no understanding or comprehension of the remedial high school definition of science. Why are you here?

That site you referenced is laden in Woit/Smolin crackpottery. Physical laws are laws, they do not change, they are mathematical. Anything else does not work, and it is fundamentally incompatible with basic real world observations that I have already detailed.

Nature follows laws. Undebatable trash such as yourself are the epitome of religious dogmatism for being unable to appreciate this simple fact about the world.

>> No.5117695

>>5115889
This definition is not applicable to the thread. It is incorrect. Confirmed strawman.

>> No.5117698

>>5115893
Semantical strawman. This is not the definition we are using. Under your definition biology is a hard science. This is untrue.

>It's not. Troll on.
Keep telling that to yourself. It does not make your definition less wrong.

>> No.5118696

>>5117693
Do you have a falsifiable claim about math applying to the real world that we can talk about? Or are you just another idiot Platonist?

>> No.5118705

Math consists of idealizations of physical phenomena, in some sense it's philosophy with rules.

Calling math fiction doesn't make sense though, what about is untrue?

>> No.5118711

>>5118696


No one sacked up and met me i see. you just proved my point, you're a bunch of pansies who just talk without backing it up. i'm willing to let you go on with your pointless sarcastic threads abotu karate kid 3, just admit that u shoudlnt have disrespected me in the first place if u were too p-ssy to back it up. admit that and i'm outa here to a place where people appreciate what the movie is about. how can u call the threats empty when i am offerring to meet up and everyone who disrespected me is too chump to do so? i just think, if u are going to get up the sack to disrespect me, u should at least have the sack to meet up and back up the words tonight u can meet up with me at the new york city subway station, gate 5, 8pm. ill be there to catch the L to an appointment at 8, but i'll get there earlier so we can settle up, 6pm? 7pm? way to shoot out insults all weekend while i am not even near a computer. u guys are really stand up guys. whatever. keep on with your bs. all i know is i gave a location and what i looked like and what ill be wearing. u can say it's fake all u want, but it isn't. no one will come see for themselves. to tell u the truth, i am exhausted from all this. ill just let u guys keep on with the insults and chalk it up to you all just being internet wannabe thugs. ill just go back to talking about the wire. i am exhausted from saying the same things over to u pansies

>> No.5118715

interesting fact: there is no other reason then past experience to believe that physical rules will stay the same.

>> No.5118722

What about neuroscience?

>> No.5118733

>>5118715


The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of your of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this was true in your case then I would have never have exposed myself to what you wrote. It just wouldn't have been "right." Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

>> No.5118739

>>5118733

wut

>> No.5118742

>>5118739


The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of your of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this was true in your case then I would have never have exposed myself to what you wrote. It just wouldn't have been "right." Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

>> No.5118750

Econometrics should be a little before Maths. And it's the most useful study.

>> No.5118808

>>5118696
The real question is do YOU have any falsifiable claims? It is your burden of proof. You made the original post in >>5115712, and so far your attempts to show this have only demonstrated your lack of remedial knowledge on science/maths.

Regardless, I've given you several already. Namely for you to prove to me that there exists a mathematical inconsistency in the real world - >>5115797 - please continue to prove that you have both a severe lack of reading comprehension and an inability to appreciate what you are even debating.

Just because we (ie human beings) do not know anything except maths without 'human baggage', it doesn't follow from this it is the only thing there can be. The equations of electrodynamics are the laws for real world phenomena. Every term is derived empirically. The laws existed before we had the experimental techniques to obtain them - if they did not it would be impossible to obtain them in the first place (for obvious reasons).

>> No.5118809

>>5118711
>>5118733
>>5118739
>>5118742
Back to >>>/b/.

>> No.5118811

>>5118715
Your claim is equivalent to the belief in the existence of a bearded man in the sky despite evidence to the contrary; ie you ignore the processes known as "prediction" and "experiment" in the scientific method. Which are the tools required to provide counterfactual definiteness. You do not understand science. Physics experiments must measure the results of many trillions of processes in various conditions with accuracy of many - up to 23 - significant figures. And a theory is supposed to (and does) agree with all of them. Please go back to >>>/x/.

>> No.5118848

>computer science in the middle when its purely computation engineering

>> No.5118853

>>5115434
Arithmetic is not rigor, it is repetition

>> No.5118855

What. Real Computer Sience is between Pyshics and Math

>> No.5118859

>>5118848
Not American here.
I thought comp-sci was mostly alhorithmic?

>> No.5118861

>>5118855
Troll harder.

>> No.5118868
File: 32 KB, 740x308, purity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5118868

125 posts and nobody's posted the XKCD comic? for shame.
http://xkcd.com/435/