Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 208 KB, 807x935, 1508618373488.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9279592 No.9279592 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Math is a religion.
You must make assumptions (axioms) in order to prove any statements.
Depending on who you talk to, you can come across many different axioms used by many different people. There is no universal set of axioms that describe all of math.
>yfw /sci/ is truly the board of sheep.

>> No.9279617
File: 1.32 MB, 2096x1536, pg44-boredom-getty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9279617

>>9279592
wow anon you're so fucking deep

>> No.9279666

Listen here you motherfucking idiot. If math were a religion (which it isn't) planes would be falling out of the sky, buildings would be collapsing, GPS would tell you you are 5 minutes away from the sun. The reason all of this doesn't happen is because despite the fact that math isn't tangible (formal science), it is an incredibly useful language that WORKS and thats a fact.
Religion on the other hand, is based on a buch of words some junkie munk wrote down on sheets of paper. Fuckoff and go be an idiot somewhere else.

>> No.9279685

>>9279592
Wish this board knew more about Pythagoras.

>> No.9279698

>>9279666
What axioms do you belive to be true anon? Every theorm in existence is based on belief. All theorms are based on circular definitions and axioms developed by some junkie mathematician wrote down on sheets of paper. How is that any different than religion?

>> No.9279832

>>9279592
this is what happens when /sci/ doesn't read philosophy.

>> No.9279858
File: 50 KB, 488x398, Religion math.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9279858

>>9279592

>> No.9279892

>>9279698
Because there is no such thing as a true or false axiom, nor do mathematicians claim such. They are only useful or useless, interesting or not. Religion and belief is first and foremost a claim about what is true, which is why it fails.

>> No.9279925

Math is the study of the consequences of the axioms. We only care about the zeros of the Zeta function under ZFC, if our axioms allow for 0=1 then what the fuck is anything that comes afterwards useful for.

>> No.9280206

>math a religion

you are a retard

>> No.9280215

>>9279858
Could you post the source? I'm down to reading some math philosophy.

>> No.9280224

>>9280215
Kunen, The Foundations of Mathematics

>> No.9280245

>>9280224
Ah, that's not a philosophy book. That's just a math book. I already have a main book I need to get through. Maybe another time.

>> No.9280971

>>9279592
did you just have your first philosphy class?

>> No.9281314

>>9279592
You are right in your characterization of math, but you completely fail to see the most obvious flaw in you argument.
That flaw is that math actually has predictive qualities, while Newtons laws may be "wrong" or only "approximately true", they still enable us to make predictions about the real world.

In your whole post you are dodging this obvious point, if math has absolutely no relations to reality how could it predict reality in any way?
If ZFC is completely meaningless and just arbitrarily chosen by humans would you not expect that math could not possibly describe reality in any way.

>>9279698
Is an idiotic post, you don't even understand the question you are raising.
For your claim to have any value what so ever you have to demonstrate that math being able to describe reality with these axioms is just a coincidence.
And you have a lot of evidence piled up against you.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action