News:

Heaven is a sausage party.

Main Menu

the math poll

Started by rong, October 10, 2009, 12:34:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

pick one, please

math was invented
14 (43.8%)
math was discovered
4 (12.5%)
it's a little bit of both
8 (25%)
don't know
2 (6.3%)
don't care
4 (12.5%)

Total Members Voted: 32

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12
User actions

The Good Reverend Roger

#60
October 12, 2009, 04:56:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 04:55:55 PM
It's for weak cowards who can't stand the rigor of Roger Prime.

Precisely.  Exactly.  There is no room for debate on this subject.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

LMNO

#61
October 12, 2009, 04:59:01 PM
So, can Roger Prime be used to say:

"Math is both invented and discovered.  But it was invented first, fuckos."

The Good Reverend Roger

#62
October 12, 2009, 05:00:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 04:59:01 PM
So, can Roger Prime be used to say:

"Math is both invented and discovered.  But it was invented first, fuckos."

More precisely:

"It's a language, shitnecks.  Quit trying to inject Eastern Philosophy into it, or I will kick off the top of your head and shit into your cranium."
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

LMNO

#63
October 12, 2009, 05:01:26 PM
Can you discover things inside of a language?

The Good Reverend Roger

#64
October 12, 2009, 05:03:25 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 05:01:26 PM
Can you discover things inside of a language?

Yes.  Have you ever heard Dan Quayle speak?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Triple Zero

#65
October 12, 2009, 05:05:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 05:01:26 PM
Can you discover things inside of a language?

In a formal language of sufficient complexity (Gödel), I would say you could. Whether natural languages have this kind of complexity, you'd have to ask the linguists, but afaik, most natural languages have context-sensitive grammars, not free grammars.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

LMNO

#66
October 12, 2009, 05:06:33 PM
So: "Math is a Language, so it was invented, fuckstick; and you can discover things inside an invented language... Now fuck off before I invent new purposes for rebar."

The Good Reverend Roger

#67
October 12, 2009, 05:07:25 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 12, 2009, 05:05:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 05:01:26 PM
Can you discover things inside of a language?

In a formal language of sufficient complexity (Gödel), I would say you could. Whether natural languages have this kind of complexity, you'd have to ask the linguists, but afaik, most natural languages have context-sensitive grammars, not free grammars.

Also, languages are added to as new things have to be described.

For example, trying to explain how an Ipod works to Ben Franklin would be interesting.  Trying to explain it to Francis Bacon would be impossible.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

#68
October 12, 2009, 05:07:59 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 05:06:33 PM
So: "Math is a Language, so it was invented, fuckstick; and you can discover things inside an invented language... Now fuck off before I invent new purposes for rebar."

STOP THAT!

I have dibs on being me.  :crankey:
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

LMNO

#69
October 12, 2009, 05:15:45 PM
Too late: We have invented Roger Prime, and are discovering new ways to use it.

The Good Reverend Roger

#70
October 12, 2009, 05:17:50 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 05:15:45 PM
Too late: We have invented Roger Prime, and are discovering new ways to use it.

I need a laughing cranky emote.

"Ragemirth".
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Captain Utopia

#71
October 12, 2009, 05:27:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 12, 2009, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 12, 2009, 04:44:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 12, 2009, 04:38:54 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 12, 2009, 04:38:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 04:33:46 PM
But those relationships wouldn't exist without the rules.
Vedic mathematicians may disagree.

Vedic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Bharati_Krishna_Tirtha%27s_Vedic_mathematics

Haven't read it yet, so I'm not sure what to think

I just browsed it, and it's absolute bullshit.  Fucking drek on the same scale as that bullshit back in the 70s where everyone tried to turn physics into Eastern mysticism.

ATTN, FICTIONPUSS:  WE ARE DISCUSSING MATHEMATICS, NOT HIPPIE BULLSHIT.
I can't speak for the wiki-page. But the video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZKOPKIHsrc ) isn't exactly hippie bullshit - I couldn't find any other material which describes it in the same way, so here's a still:



It works by drawing lines, with the different angles representing the different numbers, and using the groupings for whatever base you want. You count the intersections to arrive at the result.

The argument I was trying to make was along the lines of - if two different rulesets come up with the same relationship, then the relationship exists without either rule set and hence cannot be an invention.

Cain

#72
October 12, 2009, 05:31:13 PM
Quoteif two different rulesets come up with the same relationship, then the relationship exists without either rule set

Not necessarily.

fomenter

#73
October 12, 2009, 05:45:13 PM
if the aliens land on earth, they will have a "math language" the symbols will be different from ours but the relationships they express or have to the other symbols should be the same...



so... its a language, within the language discovery's can be made, what the language describes is universal,  two independently developed math languages would be identical in substance

or

     :? 
"So she says to me, do you wanna be a BAD boy? And I say YEAH baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! I'm makin' gravy... Without the lumps. HAAA-ha-ha-ha!"


hmroogp

Payne

#74
October 12, 2009, 06:36:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 12, 2009, 04:15:15 PM
The numbers e, pi and i were all invented for entirely unrelated purposes. I realize this might not sound entirely convincing, but there is something special about Euler's formula which makes it different from other mathematical formulas, and that is that it states an Emergent property of mathematics. It is not for nothing that it is claimed he said this formula was proof God exists (not sure if he said it in jest or not--but it is a rather amazing feat where some things appear to click together very unexpectedly).

This, possibly, is where my problem with the "Discovery" semantics arises.

IF there are perfect relationships within nature, and mathematical principles can be truly "discovered", then that would suggest some form of intelligence at work in the universe as we see it. (Whether you think of that as a religious act of creation by a God or Gods, or more of an idea like "we create the universe, as we see it, through observation" makes no real difference here.)

IF the universe has the hand of intelligence in it's creation, then you get into some REALLY tricky ground philosophically and, possibly, theologically. Which is really the point of this discussion, as I see it, but apparently out of ALL of our reaches to really resolve. We can have well researched opinions on the matter, but they will always only be opinions.

I prefer to think of it in terms of the more complex any kind of system becomes (such as mathematical language, or physics, certainly over the last century or so) the more "Weird Shit" you are going to find. The more advanced and arcane our mathematical language becomes the more we're going to come across bizarre concepts, and the more we'll have to invent language to describe those things, and the yet more complex everything becomes. It'll work, on paper at least and maybe even in the observable 'Real World', but it becomes more likely that people will mistake this theoretical universe for the real deal as it becomes more complex and closer to the truth such exercises are designed to find.

As I alluded to, I don't particularly care for the semantics of "Discovery" versus "Invention". The only REAL issue here is WHAT exactly IS the universe that such things are describing, and how well do they describe them?

It should be pointed out that I know fuck all about advanced mathematics, or physics or comparative theology, philosophy or ANY of the shit that is being discussed here, and I really don't CARE about the complex examples being used to underline or undermine arguments.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12
User actions