/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9813533]

Dismissal of mathematical "cranks" serves merely as a way for mathematicians to enforce a hegemonic mode of thought while dismissing criticism of mathematics as a whole.

Mathematicians claim taking the "contrapositive" of a statement is a way to obtain an equivalent statement that might be easier to prove, but consider: "If it is after three, it is not much after three.", a relatively normal thing someone might say about what time it is; the contrapositive is then "If it is much after three, it is not after three." which makes no sense, is clearly not true, ever, and is not something anyone would say in any circumstances. "Logical reasoning" merely serves to indocrinate people into a neo-Aristotelian Western binary tradition by force -- e.g. "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."

Another pernicious mode of thought in mathematics is the preference of "natural" transformations and definitions as well as "natural" deduction over Hilbert-style proof systems.
"Natural" is not good. Life in nature is nasty, brutish, and short.

Some other things that aren't natural include eyeglasses, prosthetic limbs, vaccines, antibiotics, air conditioning, cooked food, and electronics. I worship artifice, and I find the idea that natural things are laudable to be repugnant in every possible way. I'm also a proud trans woman, and that's sure as hell not natural either. I utterly detest nature.

[Anonymous No.9813539]

>>9813533
>If it is after three, it is not much after three
This is techincally a nonsensical statement. "Not much after three" would be synonymous with "not after three." Of course the contrapostive to a nonsense statement is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.9813558]

>>9813533
>>9813539
If you actually understood the semantics of classical logic you would know "If it is much after three, it is not after three" makes perfect sense, it's equivalent to saying "It is not much after three", since it being much after three implies a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.9813560]

Why did you attach an image of vieta jumping?

[Anonymous No.9813623]

>>9813533
>I'm also a proud trans woman, and that's sure as hell not natural either. I utterly detest nature.
Trying waaaay too hard.

[Anonymous No.9813629]

>>9813558
If you actually understood classical logic you would know that the contrapostive to a statement is equivalent to the statement itself.

[Anonymous No.9813633]

>>9813533
Bad bait, law of non-contradiction is true, and there's nothing about it that invalidates trans-identities so wtf are you even talking about.

[Anonymous No.9813634]

>>9813558
>you would know "If it is much after three, it is not after three" makes perfect sense
No it doesn't. Statements cant contradict themselves.

[Anonymous No.9813636]

>>9813633
Non-contradiction does not, but the preference for Gentzen style proof systems over Hilbert style proof systems evinces an teleological essentialist Aristotelian mode of thinking which prefers the "natural", as do statements about natural definitions, natural transformations / isomorphisms, etc.

[Anonymous No.9813642]

>>9813636
There's no such thing as "unnatural". If trans people exist, they are obviously natural. I don't see the problem.

[Anonymous No.9813658]

>>9813533
>"If it is after three, it is not much after three."
This false. "After three" includes "much after three."

[Anonymous No.9814168]

>>9813642
The preference of mathematicians for natural transformations, isomorphisms, etc. as well as for natural deduction over Hilbert style proofs suggests that they believe things can be not natural.

[Anonymous No.9814178]

>>9813533
>why doesnt science consider my bullshit just as true as the truth? they are mean and i dont like smart people.

please kys

[sage goes in all fields No.9814188]

[Anonymous No.9814200]

>>9813533
>Ifit is after three, it is not much after three
this statement is equivalent to the contrapositive
>If it is much after three, it is not after three.
The contrapositive is absurd meaning it CANNOT BE MUCH AFTER THREE. This is also the abbreviated meaning of the first sentence.
e.g. the statement
>If the Earth is flat, OP is a genius
directly implies that the Earth is not flat, because the given consequent is absurd
i.e. you're not making much of a case against dismissing cranks when you demonstrate that you are one yourself

[Anonymous No.9814597]

>>9814200
1. If A had gone to the party, then B would still have gone.
2. If B had not gone to the party, A would not have gone.

Suppose A is trying to avoid B but would go to the party if A does not go, but B does want to go to the party with A. Then 1 is true, 2 is false.

1. (Even) If Mary Antoinette had not been executed, she would still be dead today.
2. If Mary Antoinette were alive today, she would have been executed in 1793.

1 is true, 2 makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.9814600]

>>9813533
>our faces when realize science isn't about advancing knowledge but about separating those who "know" from those who don't.

[Anonymous No.9814752]

>>9814597
Both statements are true, your understanding of conditional logic is wrong.
>Suppose A is trying to avoid B but would go to the party if A does not go
You've mislabeled someone, this statement is nonsense and not equivalent. A will go to the party if A doesn't go?

First pair: 1 means If A goes, B goes. This means that 2. If B doesn't go, the A must not have gone.

Second pair: If M had not been executed, she would be dead. If M were alive, then she must have been executed according to this statement, because if she HADN'T been executed, she wouldn't be alive. Now you could also state that 3) If M had been executed, she would be dead, but this isn't a logical consequence, but a semantic one (based on the definition of executed) which together with 1) means that 4) M is dead. But 2) is still valid, because statements with absurd antecedents are always true. Example: If pigs fly, your mother is an attractive girl. It doesn't matter that the consequent is never true, because the antecedent is also never true.

Now you seem to believe that this word "still" changes something. You might interpret it as
>P --> still Q means Q is true in any case
But then
>Not Q --> Pigs Fly
because Q is always true

[Anonymous No.9814771]

>If it is after three, it is not much after three

1. Curry's Paradox
>If it is much after three, it is not after three
2. That is not the contrapositive of the first.

"If it is not not much after three, It is not not after three" But that just shows that the contrapositive of Curry's Paradox is not really a contrapositive.

if this sentence is true, then Germany borders China.

If Germany borders China, then this sentence is not true.


see?

[Anonymous No.9814784]

>>9813533
There is no contrapositive of "If it is much after three, it is not after three." because this is not a wff. Stop being a retard

[Anonymous No.9814803]

>>9814597
For fuck's sake meets learn conditional logic:

A -> B means one of the following is true

1. A true and B true
2. A false and B false
3. A false and B false

The contrapositive ~B -> ~A means one of the following is true:

1. ~B true and ~A true
2. ~B false and ~A true
1. ~B false and ~A false

Let's translate the negation

1. B false and A false
2. B true and A false
3. B true and A true

Note how these three conditions are equal to the first three conditions. This the contrapositive is always equivalent to the original statement.

[Anonymous No.9814855]

>>9813533
>If it is after three, it is not much after three.
This is absurd since it can be after three and much after three.

>If A had gone to the party, then B would still have gone.
>If B didn't go to the party, then A didn't go
This is true. The only way B doesn't go to the party is if A doesn't go.

>If Mary Antoinette had not been executed, she would still be dead today.
The only way this is true is if Mary Antoinette being alive today is absurd.

>If Mary Antoinette were alive today, she would have been executed in 1793.
If an absurdity is true then anything is true.

[Anonymous No.9814954]

>>9814803
that's neither the most intuitive way of explaining conditionals nor the most classically correct. but yes, I am familiar with it.

[Anonymous No.9814968]

>>9813533
>Likes Hilbert-style proof system
>dislikes Modus Tollens
What what did xe mean by this?

[Anonymous No.9814992]

ONE IS ONE.
BUT CONSIDER THIS!
ONE IS TWO?
HOW CAN ONE BE ONE IF TWO?

[Anonymous No.9815000]

>>9813533
found the mathematical crank

[Anonymous No.9815200]

You remind me of the guy who claims to have proved the Riemann hypothesis but is convinced his proof is not accepted because it was published on vixra.

[Anonymous No.9815213]

>>9814992

> Natural deduction is better as a means of formalizing proofs than Hilbert-style proof systems
> Natural transformations and definitions are more desirable than unnatural ones
> Eyeglasses and computers somehow aren't bad because they are unnatural.
> "If Mary Antoinette were alive today, she would have been executed in 1793." somehow makes sense or is true
> "If it is much after three, it is not after three" somehow is equivalent to "If it is after three, it is not much after three", and the former makes sense as something to say, ever, at any time

How can "If A had said xe was going to the party, then B would have as well." and
"If B had not said xe was going to the party, A would not have." be equivalent, if it might be that A is trying to avoid B but will go to the party if B is not there?

[Anonymous No.9815344]

>>9813533
>"Natural" is not good. Life in nature is nasty, brutish, and short.
kek

Suppose A -> B. Now suppose that - B does not imply - A.

If A is true, then B is true. But this cannot be the case, for - B is true. Therefore A -> B <=> - B -> - A

[Anonymous No.9815859]

>>9815213
> "If Mary Antoinette were alive today, she would have been executed in 1793." somehow makes sense or is true
Mary Antoinette being alive today is an absurdity.

> "If it is much after three, it is not after three" somehow is equivalent to "If it is after three, it is not much after three", and the former makes sense as something to say, ever, at any time
The latter is false, so it's irrelevant what it's equivalent to.

>How can "If A had said xe was going to the party, then B would have as well." and
>"If B had not said xe was going to the party, A would not have." be equivalent, if it might be that A is trying to avoid B but will go to the party if B is not there?
The only way B doesn't say xe is going to the party is if A doesn't say it. This makes perfect sense.