/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7006529]

Why don't mathematicians learn Syntax, Grammar and linguistics first before learning math?

it's scary to realize that there is a generation of funded imbeciles walking around truly believing that math is a 'thing' that 'exists' inside of 'stuff'

it's like they don't understand the number of characteristics given to a thing is infinite

So how long do we actually have to wait for these brainstorm logic-aurtists before we can get some real work done?

[Anonymous No.7006534]

Back to >>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.7006540]

>>7006529
>>7006529
thing is, I WANT to learn the grammar, syntax and linguistics first. It makes studying and understanding mathematics far more easy to understand for me. Math student here

P.S. Are there any cheatsheets someone could provide that are online that is a list of mathematical terms/syntax that I can study?

[Anonymous No.7006556]

I don't see how an understanding of those things relates at all to questions about whether math "exists" or whatever mathematical epistemology/ontology issues. I'm not that great at math, but I do have a degree in linguistics and focused on syntax.

[Anonymous No.7006574]

>>7006556
Because it's a necessity to understand why math was purposed in the first place, it was a 'question' of speech and logic inherent to the nature of a thing.

At some point, we stopped asking the question of the thing, and concerned ourselves with the principles of math.

The problem is, those principles were developed to understanding the orginal question, which means that our modern mathematical schemes hinder progression in the pursuits of truth regarding new questions where old variables don't seem to work, like quantum mechanics.

we are trying to use the same scheme of logic and language to decipher atoms

As for pure mathematics, I could write you a new set of principles, wherein you could spend your life defining the limitations of theoretical properties inside of that language, but I could just write another language for you to waste your life on all over again the next day.

If a good graduate mathematician had even a slice of decency, he'd recognize that if he can't 'speak out' a problem in math properly, there is an extremely high likelihood that he doesn't understand grammar and logic, he simply abuses the principles of math he's been taught, and he is not only incapable of competently answering a question, but he is also incapable of asking new questions. All he can do is break down a formula quickly to diagnose a problem.

>but diagnosing a problem is all there is to answering a question

then either modern math is fundamentally wrong in supplying adequate methods of determining logical truths, or we're really fucking stupid not yet knowing where and why things aren't working out.

I mean come on, we don't even know what a prime number is, or how pi works. we've just found patterns to predict it quickly.

>>7006534
I'm talking about math, keep up or shut up.

[Anonymous No.7006580]

op hasn't taken mushrooms and realized that math is a set of laws that govern reality independent of human communication

learn2conciousness

[Anonymous No.7006603]

>>7006580
yeah you really do need to take shrooms to come to such a shortsighted view of math.

I'm not sure if this person is trolling or expressing a real view of how they think the world operates.

math is words
words are not real

is math a word used to define the limitations of all operations within the universe? yes
can we define those limits? yes
have we, or math, defined those limits yet?
no.
and so, until further notice, math is not a god, and you are all just monkeys scratching shit into the sides of cliffs to figure out how many moons until the next rain season.

I don't mind math, or art, or science, but the ego of some people, it's the very thing that hinders our progression.

And all we can say is 'duhh uhh math is uhh god!"

[Anonymous No.7006610]

but I was taught the motivations and meanings of math: philosophy of science
I guess I went to good unis.. too bad I didn't even finish my career ;_;

[Anonymous No.7006611]

>>7006574
I have seen a cat without a grin before but never a grin without a cat.

[Anonymous No.7006616]

>>7006603
Sounds like you would love wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.

Mostly because he shits on philosophers abusing language to ask meaningless questions and so on.

[Anonymous No.7006619]

>>7006603
>and so, until further notice, math is not a god, and you are all just monkeys scratching shit into the sides of cliffs to figure out how many moons until the next rain season.
Saved btw

[Anonymous No.7006620]

can you guys show me a '1' (one)?
do you understand that a '1' is not a physical thing, but denotes a unit?
math is constructed on this. math isn't a tangible thing, it's just a human construct.

[Anonymous No.7006666]

>>7006620
><span class="math"> is just a human construct.

Seriously not trying to be a troll, but this is a question that I've pondered for a long time. Is my following logic wrong?


The universe exists.
Mathematical language exists.

The universe is designed in a way that permits the existence of mathematical language.

Therefore mathematical language was discovered in the universe, not invented.

The mathematical language we use is a representation of a larger entity in the universe called "math."[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.7006684]

>>7006666
sounds good, except for:

>Therefore mathematical language was discovered in the universe not invented.

Can you really suppose a definitive difference between inventions and discoveries?

I think it's -human- to think there's a difference. Suppose there is a new thing to discover per every moment you exist, there is then a new thing to invent. You may run out of uses for each invention, but whether something is useful or redundant doesn't stop it from being an invention.

So math is discovered, but only if it works. It only works if it is applied to material. If it did not work when applied to material, it would not be useful, and we would have long forgotten it. Math then is the construct of useful ideas as they are applied to materials.

I'd say math is as invented as it is discovered. Man says it is only invented when it is useful. We all say it would not be discovered or invented if it were not applicable.

Whether you contend math to be invented, fundamental, or discovered, it is always the case that Math is done by us AS we affix it to what we know to be true around use in the nature of the universe. That doesn't mean the universe is mathematical, it means that our greatest hopes and dreams rely upon making the universe mathematical.

You could almost say that math and discovery are intangibly synonymous: if it can not be discovered, it is not mathematical.

Whether Math or the Universe precede one or the other is not debatable, the universe is by definition all things, inventions, discoveries, material, math, and so on.

we only want to make it mathematical so that we can adapt to it as we adapt a language to render it more visible to us.

[Anonymous No.7006715]

>>7006684
Given that we define inventions as distinct from discoveries; yes, yes there is a difference.

We define it that way you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.7006995]

Your infantile philosodrivel has nothing to do with grammar, syntax or linguistics. Stop using words you don't understand, retard.

[Anonymous No.7007061]

>>7006995
1/10 I replied.

[Anonymous No.7007078]

>>7006529
Why don't linguists learn logic, epistemology and metaphysics before learning linguistics?

btw you're talking more about the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of language rather than the things themselves

[Anonymous No.7007079]

>>7006995
/thread

[Anonymous No.7007083]

OP, you don't know shit about linguistics.

[Anonymous No.7007091]

>>7006995
seconded

[Anonymous No.7007202]

>>7006715
lets discuss elephants

define elephant
>big grey mammal native to Africa
why?
>We define it that way you fucking retard.

being an angry little bitch doesn't really prove anything, and 'given' isn't an argument, it's a trivial implication. If you're trolling me to prove my point, you're doing a good job.

>>7006995
your funny image folder has done more for your argument than your actual argument, which explains why you save captioned reaction images
are we still in grade 11? or do university students really resort to calling people 'retard' when they can't formulate intelligent responses. You're not really pointing out any chinks, but the fact that you can't draw any lines between grammar and the fundaments of math.

Do you comprehend what I'm saying?

>>7007078
I'm not talking about the philosophy of anything, I'm talking about grammar, syntax, and the formation of language for the sake of tackling problems within the specific scope of

>>7007083
no, you don't know shit about linguistics.
Our arguments are now equally valuable, and equally worthless, but I think if you type some more swear words I'll believe you.

>>7007091
>>7007079
any body against my arguments aligns themselves with people who haven't made their own, this strengthens everything I'm saying; only imbeciles really 'believe' math formulas have some inherent connection to the universe, but I have a feeling you need help whenever the problem is expressed in words.
If this is you, you should avoid math, or, and I'm being honest right now, you are going to live a pitiful and unfulfilling life if you seek out employment in a math heavy field.

[Anonymous No.7007205]

>>7007202
>my argument

You didn't make any. How about you look up what linguistics actually is, instead of making yourself appear even more uneducated?

[Anonymous No.7007209]

>>7007202
>but the fact that you can't draw any lines between grammar and the fundaments of math.

Formal grammars have been known for a long time. However this has absolutely nothing to do with your idiotic and childish philosodrivel. Have you tried reading the wikipedia page about grammar?