/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7116720]

What the hell does this mean?

[Anonymous No.7116726]

There are an infinite number of implications of any particular true statement. While it may be easy to show something it true, "understanding" may be thought to come from working with many of these implications, which is impractical.

[Anonymous No.7116979]

compartmentalization of knowledge
math is a tree with so many branches
understanding requires 'integration'

[Anonymous No.7117282]

It is what it says.

You can only try your best to understand. It gets better, but you still feel foolish.

[Anonymous No.7117340]

I always took it as him being "humble" about math. I mean, Von Neumann clearly understood math a lot better than the average person.

[Anonymous No.7117345]

>>7117340
Game theory is literally the foundation of modern economics, Im surprised he isnt more well known

[Anonymous No.7117360]

>>7117345
>Von Neumann
>inst more well know

Are you fucking kidding me? I've never met anyone past HS that doesn't know his name.

[Anonymous No.7117372]

>>7117360
go on the city center and ask the first 5 people. If 2 of them know the name "Von Neumann", I pay you $100.

[Anonymous No.7117374]

>>7117360
Maybe where you're from, here in Holland he is practically unknown

[Anonymous No.7117382]

>>7117360
lol no

[Anonymous No.7117388]

>>7117372
Most people don't know who the fucking PM of UK is I really don't see your point, plebs gonna pleb.

>>7117374
Land vol kaaskop kanker plebs.

>>7117382
I don't talk to a lot of people outside academia, it's not that hard to believe.

[Anonymous No.7117389]

What this jew ever did himself? Nothing special.

[Anonymous No.7117409]

>>7116979
>This is what the humanities actually believe

[Anonymous No.7117435]

>>7116720
He has a dumb face. George Boole's face was more awesome.

[Anonymous No.7117719]

>>7117435
>not Boltzmann
Apply yourself

[Anonymous No.7117740]

>>7116720
Math is about structure, not meaning.

Your time is much better spent learning the features of the structure than putting effort into reasons, which will only be rationalizations.

[Anonymous No.7117774]

>>7117719
Where'd you get that picture from? I actually know that guy.

[Anonymous No.7117779]

>>7117774
I just googled Boltzmann
There are tons of pictures, they really seem to like eachother

[Anonymous No.7117782]

>>7117779
I worked for him at the NCI for like a year. He does research into Molecular Information Theory. It's just a little weird seeing his picture here.

[Anonymous No.7117795]

>>7117782
I guess molecular information theory is closely related to entropy
I believe Shannon based his definition of entropy on Boltzmanns H-theorem
I would probably visit Boltzmanns grave as well given the chance

[Anonymous No.7117799]

>>7116720
Math doesn't make any sense, you just sort of see a pattern enough and get used to what its implications are and how to manipulate it to get the answer you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.7117814]

>>7117795
That's exactly right. One of the big points of his theory was that you could apply both Shannon Entropy and The Second Law of Thermodynamics when describing the binding of molecules to genomes. Hence, I think, his admiration for Boltzmann.

[Anonymous No.7117848]

>>7117814
And Boltzmann is just a really interesting person in general, way ahead of his time and misunderstood, which eventually caused him to commit suicide

[Anonymous No.7117858]

Some things in math are too far out there to really get an intuitive feeling for (algebraic geometry comes to mind.) A lot of stuff has developed to such a degree that nobody really knows how things are tied together anymore. I saw an interview with Ed Witten where he said he doesn't know how to visualize extra dimensions. A lot of these things are governed by equations and principles which people know how to use and understand their implications, but don't really "know", if that makes sense.