[ 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, 258x46, forall.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8035342 No.8035342 [Reply] [Original]

set theory is for losers

>> No.8035344
File: 30 KB, 720x438, 1456975964153.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8035344

>math
>hard science

>> No.8035369

>>8035344
yr right, math isn't a science

>> No.8035377

Set theory is more like philosophy than mathematics

>> No.8035384

>>8035344
>An apple isn't an orange

Thanks for the insight, anon.

>> No.8035396
File: 8 KB, 298x379, Retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8035396

>poincare doesnt need set theory
>poincare's IQ >> 200
>sci brainlet reads poincare doesnt like set theory
>sci brainlets IQ = 140 from feelgoodiqtest.com

sci brainlet now thinks set theory sucks

>> No.8035423

>>8035396
set theory literally does not have any kind of native concept of an expression beyond a variable. you actually have to write [math]x = A \cup B[/math] as [math]\forall U, (\forall e, e \in U \leftrightarrow e \in A \vee e \in B) \to x = U[/math].

>> No.8035431

>>8035377
Except it's also mathematics. Kind of remarkable: it is not mathematical philosophy, but philosophical mathematics.

Though set theory is also vital to many area of mainstream mathematics. There are many problems in mainstream mathematics that set theory has proven independent. Without set theory, mathematicians would try forever to prove those propositions one way or the other, and never succeed. E.g. the Whitehead Problem from abstract algebra.

>> No.8035434

>>8035423
>>8035423
That's how it's expressed in the formal language, but it's laughably not as if set theorists do this. I have difficulty imagining this is what you were implying, but I can't see the point of your post if you believed otherwise.

>> No.8035449

>>8035434
if you only judge a foundational system based on the semi-handwavy abstractions people build on it to do "normal math" in, then everything might as well be the same

>> No.8035454

What kind of plebeian even considers set theory as anything beside a shorthand in mathematics nowadays? If you guys want to disparage mathematics for having content beyond how to engineer roads you third world communist pricks should be making fun of category theory. All questions of foundations are addressed these days within its purview, and better yet, it's practical enough that physicists and computer scientists apply it quite often.

>> No.8035457

>>8035454
I know it might be asking a bit much, but I don't suppose you know the *definition* of a category?

>> No.8035461

>>8035449
I have no idea what you're trying to say, and I don't think I care.

>> No.8035563

>>8035461
ok