[ 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: 1.47 MB, 460x258, laughingelbs.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6823582 No.6823582[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>he thinks Math is a Science and not just a mere tool

>> No.6823587

Yeah you'd have to be pretty dumb to think math is a science. Nothing controversial there.

>> No.6823594

>>6823582
>Implying anyone thinks math is science
>Implying that makes it a tool

l m a o

tell me all about the advanced math you learn when you play in your engineering classes :^)

>> No.6823599

>>6823582
>false dichotomy retard
it is neither a science, nor just a tool.

>> No.6823606

>>6823582
What you call math is something people who do math do unconsciously.

>> No.6823607

>>6823599
'Tool' is pretty broadly defined. I think it could encompass math.

>> No.6823616
File: 58 KB, 500x500, 1394128157091.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6823616

It's quite clear that math is a tool. Who ever claimed the opposite?

>> No.6823643

>>6823616

Mathematics is a tool in terms of baby tier plug and chug. But it's much more than that in higher levels.

>> No.6823665

Fuck you.

>> No.6823674
File: 154 KB, 576x1541, curing cancer.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6823674

>2014
>studying Math

It's the century of biology, mates. Come aboard and we shall cure cancer!

>> No.6823676

>>6823599
you can't use 'nor' like that

>> No.6823679

>>6823676
>>>/lit/

>> No.6823683

>>6823676
yes you can

>> No.6823686

>>6823674
>tfw from a part of the US where medical research and microbiological sciences are pretty standard practices
Feels good man.

>> No.6823692

>>6823676
That's exactly how one should use it

Neither this nor that.

>> No.6823694

>>6823607
math is a tool, but it is not "just" a tool, not "merely" a tool

>> No.6823696

>>6823692
>>6823683
>>6823679
I just tricked you guys.

>> No.6823700
File: 528 KB, 680x1671, merely an act.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6823700

>>6823696
Right.

>> No.6823702

>>6823582
You're a mere tool.

>> No.6823704

>>6823700
This was a fun experiment.

>> No.6823713
File: 21 KB, 246x300, theodore_roosevelt_laughing-246x300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6823713

>>6823704
>this is what psychologists consider an experiment

>> No.6823757
File: 453 KB, 280x207, 1412465638410.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6823757

>>6823606
>What you call math is something people who do math do unconsciously.

>> No.6823776

>>6823713
At least psychologists have experiments, mathematicians just make up facts and "deduce" things from them.

>> No.6823873

Science is contained in math.

So it's not that math is a science, it's science that is math.

>> No.6823885

>>6823873
no

>> No.6823888

>>6823885
Yes.

You can describe all of science with math.

>> No.6823890

>>6823888
You're right.
-1*-1=1
Aaaaah shit. I just explained the big bang.

>> No.6823891

>>6823694
I mean, it's a cool tool. But it's just a tool.

>> No.6823896

>>6823873
no

>> No.6823898

>>6823713
top kek

>> No.6823899

>>6823888
No, you use math to calculate things that help you do science. You can't calculate biology dumbass.

>inb4 calculations in biology = biology

>> No.6823909

>>6823896
Science can only describe our universe, math can describe all of them.

>>6823899
That's just because biology hasn't got a model down yet, after that you can describe all of biology with math.

>> No.6823913

>>6823909
Math doesn't describe any universe. It's a self contained system of axioms.

>> No.6823915

>>6823913
Yes, and you just throw a bunch of them together, and call it an universe.

That's what physics does.

>> No.6823923

>>6823888
you can use mathematical models and formulations to represent what happens in physical systems but some laws of the universe aren't able to be derived by mathematics and are empirically obtained

>> No.6823931

>>6823923
Said laws are the axioms of our universe. Nothing much more to it.

>> No.6823940

>>6823915
Uhm. If you call a set of axioms a universe then you have a single "universe" which isn't even one. Not ours, not infinite. A single, ideal one.

>> No.6823942
File: 55 KB, 489x408, having problemz m8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6823942

>>6823931
>Said laws are the axioms of our universe. Nothing much more to it.

>he thinks we have any grasps of the laws of the universe

>> No.6823971

>>6823940
Not all set of axioms are the same.

>>6823942
I never said we did.

That's simply a matter of us not knowing enough.

>> No.6823999

>>6823971
You're defining every different set of base mathematical axioms to be a universe? And then saying that's a complete set of every universe including ours? No dude.

Also you can't just accept determinism and say the rules are there. I believe in determinism but I don't think it can be proved.

>> No.6824038

>>6823999
>You're defining every different set of base mathematical axioms to be a universe? And then saying that's a complete set of every universe including ours?
No. Just see physics theories and all their different axioms.

It's more of not having actually defined what kind of mathematical structure to call an universe.

Even if something is not deterministic it can still be described probabilistically.

>> No.6824142

Read "What is Mathematics"

>> No.6824160
File: 37 KB, 320x240, lazeyed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6824160

>>6824142
What would it tell me?

>> No.6824161

>>6823606
Sure they do, freshman.
>>6823888
Explain a simple reaction and everything that occurs during said reaction with a single statement.

You can't.

>> No.6824167

>>6824161
I can't describe it not because it is impossible, but because we don't know fully how it works.

In the past you couldn't describe how a ball fell with anything more than "it fell" either.

>> No.6824175

>>6824167
You still can't.

>> No.6824177

>>6824167
You will never be able to.

Why are freshman so arrogant about their babby maths?

>> No.6824197

>>6824175
Yes, due to said reasons.

>>6824177
Oh please, if you haven't seen we have mathematical models for more than balls falling.

>> No.6824201

>>6824197
I was referring to the last part of your post.

>> No.6824213

>>6824201
Because we don't how it fully works.

Though we can describe the motion with much more accuracy than "it fell".

>> No.6824286

What is not a tool?

>> No.6824310

>>6824038
Physics doesn't have a single axiom. Just models.

The universe isnt a mathematical structure.

And what do you even mean with the last sentence

>> No.6824315

>implying life isnt applied evolution
>implying evolution isnt applied biology
>biology is applied chemistry
>chemistry is applied physics
>phyiscs is applied mathematics
>math is applied philosophy

>> No.6824318

>>6824315
no

>> No.6824323

>>6824318
You are applied faggotry

>> No.6824329

>>6824315
no, fuck you and your meme

>> No.6824684

>>6824310
This is false. Axioms exist in quantum field theory, specifically second quantization, which are necessary in order for quantum mechanical laws to hold when replacing wavefunctions by field operators.
Look up commutation relations in quantum field theory.

>> No.6824696

>>6823582
>he thinks
you don't
/thread

>> No.6824698

>>6823676
Lrn2english, faget

>> No.6824699
File: 52 KB, 250x250, pretending-retarded.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6824699

>>6823696
yeah, you sure fooled us into thinking you were actually retarded

>> No.6824745
File: 45 KB, 159x219, data.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6824745

>>6824696
uhh, SNAP. Nice remark. You sure showed OP now, faggot.

>> No.6824775

>>6824745
>uhh, SNAP. Nice remark.
thank mr faget

>> No.6824782

>>6823582
>just a mere tool
>mere
Doesn't mean what you think it does.

>> No.6824866

>>6824315
>>math is applied philosophy
BUT THAT'S WRONG YOU FUCKING FAGGOT

>> No.6824875

>>6823776
you say this like it's a bad thing