Poll
Question:
pick one, please
Option 1: math was invented
votes: 14
Option 2: math was discovered
votes: 4
Option 3: it's a little bit of both
votes: 8
Option 4: don't know
votes: 2
Option 5: don't care
votes: 4
saw this (http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mathematical_universe.asp)
and decided it was as good an excuse to see what the PD'ers thought about this.
i used to be wholeheartedly convinced that mathematics was always laying around, waiting to be discovered. nowadays, i'm not so sure.
i'd venture to guess some of you folks have opinions on this and i'd like to hear them.
(if this has been discussed already, i'd appreciate a link to the thread.)
Quote from: rong on October 10, 2009, 12:34:48 AM
saw this (http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mathematical_universe.asp)
and decided it was as good an excuse to see what the PD'ers thought about this.
i used to be wholeheartedly convinced that mathematics was always laying around, waiting to be discovered. nowadays, i'm not so sure.
i'd venture to guess some of you folks have opinions on this and i'd like to hear them.
(if this has been discussed already, i'd appreciate a link to the thread.)
What sort of math? I strongly believe that, for example, Newton invented calculus rather than discovering it, but basic addition and subtraction are probably just extentions of our mind's understanding of units and counting.
Math is a language.
Therefore, it was invented.
Mathematical notations and languages were certainly invented by humans. But the relationships they describe were not.
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 10, 2009, 04:41:37 AM
Mathematical notations and languages were certainly invented by humans. But the relationships they describe were not.
Yeah, they were. Lo5 writ large.
Quote from: Kai on October 10, 2009, 01:53:04 AM
Quote from: rong on October 10, 2009, 12:34:48 AM
saw this (http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mathematical_universe.asp)
and decided it was as good an excuse to see what the PD'ers thought about this.
i used to be wholeheartedly convinced that mathematics was always laying around, waiting to be discovered. nowadays, i'm not so sure.
i'd venture to guess some of you folks have opinions on this and i'd like to hear them.
(if this has been discussed already, i'd appreciate a link to the thread.)
What sort of math? I strongly believe that, for example, Newton invented calculus rather than discovering it, but basic addition and subtraction are probably just extentions of our mind's understanding of units and counting.
wouldn't you agree, though, that the slope of the equation f(x) = x^2 is 2x whether calculus had been invented or not?
maybe another way to get at what i am asking is, pi = 3.14159. . . - i don't really think that number was invented. (although, i heard in chicago, pi is, by law, 3.14). i would argue that pi was discovered.
Quote from: rong on October 10, 2009, 05:30:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 10, 2009, 01:53:04 AM
Quote from: rong on October 10, 2009, 12:34:48 AM
saw this (http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mathematical_universe.asp)
and decided it was as good an excuse to see what the PD'ers thought about this.
i used to be wholeheartedly convinced that mathematics was always laying around, waiting to be discovered. nowadays, i'm not so sure.
i'd venture to guess some of you folks have opinions on this and i'd like to hear them.
(if this has been discussed already, i'd appreciate a link to the thread.)
What sort of math? I strongly believe that, for example, Newton invented calculus rather than discovering it, but basic addition and subtraction are probably just extentions of our mind's understanding of units and counting.
wouldn't you agree, though, that the slope of the equation f(x) = x^2 is 2x whether calculus had been invented or not?
The function defines the relationship between two things which we identify as measurable units.
Quote from: rong on October 10, 2009, 05:30:39 PM
maybe another way to get at what i am asking is, pi = 3.14159. . . - i don't really think that number was invented. (although, i heard in chicago, pi is, by law, 3.14). i would argue that pi was discovered.
It's interesting you should mention PI. Does it exist as a measurement, anywhere in the universe? You can't make a "perfect circle" out of any material, much for the same reasons as there is no real answer for where the tip of your finger ends and the rest of the universe begins.
Quote from: rong on October 10, 2009, 05:30:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 10, 2009, 01:53:04 AM
Quote from: rong on October 10, 2009, 12:34:48 AM
saw this (http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mathematical_universe.asp)
and decided it was as good an excuse to see what the PD'ers thought about this.
i used to be wholeheartedly convinced that mathematics was always laying around, waiting to be discovered. nowadays, i'm not so sure.
i'd venture to guess some of you folks have opinions on this and i'd like to hear them.
(if this has been discussed already, i'd appreciate a link to the thread.)
What sort of math? I strongly believe that, for example, Newton invented calculus rather than discovering it, but basic addition and subtraction are probably just extentions of our mind's understanding of units and counting.
wouldn't you agree, though, that the slope of the equation f(x) = x^2 is 2x whether calculus had been invented or not?
maybe another way to get at what i am asking is, pi = 3.14159. . . - i don't really think that number was invented. (although, i heard in chicago, pi is, by law, 3.14). i would argue that pi was discovered.
No, the language of math was definitely invented, but they were invented to describe phenomena in the universe in a more precise and quantitative manner, and the relationships between things (which do exist, unless your the sort that wants a barstool), because contrary to what ND Tyson says the universe does not speak in math, it just happens. As roger said, math is a language, a very useful one, but people still had to invent it.
For example, the number pi doesn't exist all by itself. Thats a concept used to describe a relationship we see between the radius of a circle and its circumference, a circle being a plane where all edges are equidistant from the center. It just so happens that that particular relationship is in the universe, and we use pi to describe it, but pi doesn't exist in the same way that the relationship does.
Not even going into bases and all that.
Quote from: LMNO on October 10, 2009, 11:06:38 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 10, 2009, 04:41:37 AM
Mathematical notations and languages were certainly invented by humans. But the relationships they describe were not.
Yeah, they were. Lo5 writ large.
You sure? How so?
I mean, I can imagine this to be the case, from the point of view that all is Chaos and we separate it into Order and Disorder with our, um, "reality tunnels". You know what I mean. So yeah, the relationships that mathematics describes for us could very well be a result of this, and therefore the Lo5.
However, how can we know for sure? And IMO, there is something about mathematics that reeks as very fundamental to reality, in a way. And really, I wouldn't dare to say what comes first, the Lo5 Chaos=Order+Disorder shtick or Mathematics.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2009, 02:29:59 AMMath is a language.
Therefore, it was invented.
You said this before, I still don't understand. You mean, Math is
just a language, and nothing more, right?
Cause then I'm going to need your definition of "language". I have a few, but they won't entirely fit around mathematics.
..
Though thinking some more, I kind of see it, the bit about language describing reality. To ask whether mathematical proofs are invented or discovered, is like asking the same question about poems, or jokes, or puns, right?
I'm still not entirely convinced, because, especially puns, they're not entirely invented, but also discovered. It goes either way, in a creative process* , you know that there are some places you can look that are more likely to contain a good idea, so are the ideas invented or discovered?
It's iffy, and if they are discovered, it means -- blablablabla does it matter anyway.
*involving language, that is. From some musicians on this board (LMNO, RWHN) I get the idea they go in a much more freeflow intuitive manner. Maybe that's something different. Maybe not, I don't have enough experience with making music.
However, an interesting question is, regardless of whether mathematics is something really fundamental in our reality or whether it's just us describing how we observe our reality to work, see they say, "mathematics is the language of nature" or "is the universal language" or something.
So the idea is, if we were to meet a bunch of aliens or their artifacts or such, we would be able to exchange some meaning, or at least recognize mathematical things, their idea of math would be the same as ours.
But if math isn't discovered, but invented, then would that still be so?
i think there's some strawmanning going on here. i'm not interested in whether math is real or not. i'm trying to decide if it was invented or discovered.
i'm still convinced that PI was discovered - in the sense that someone sat down and said, "hmm - i wonder what the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle is." and they discovered it was PI
(i will admit to some strawmanning here too, as i fully realize that PI is not a good representative for all of mathematics)
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 10, 2009, 07:03:38 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 10, 2009, 11:06:38 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 10, 2009, 04:41:37 AM
Mathematical notations and languages were certainly invented by humans. But the relationships they describe were not.
Yeah, they were. Lo5 writ large.
You sure? How so?
I mean, I can imagine this to be the case, from the point of view that all is Chaos and we separate it into Order and Disorder with our, um, "reality tunnels". You know what I mean. So yeah, the relationships that mathematics describes for us could very well be a result of this, and therefore the Lo5.
However, how can we know for sure? And IMO, there is something about mathematics that reeks as very fundamental to reality, in a way. And really, I wouldn't dare to say what comes first, the Lo5 Chaos=Order+Disorder shtick or Mathematics.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 10, 2009, 02:29:59 AMMath is a language.
Therefore, it was invented.
You said this before, I still don't understand. You mean, Math is just a language, and nothing more, right?
Cause then I'm going to need your definition of "language". I have a few, but they won't entirely fit around mathematics.
..
Though thinking some more, I kind of see it, the bit about language describing reality. To ask whether mathematical proofs are invented or discovered, is like asking the same question about poems, or jokes, or puns, right?
I'm still not entirely convinced, because, especially puns, they're not entirely invented, but also discovered. It goes either way, in a creative process* , you know that there are some places you can look that are more likely to contain a good idea, so are the ideas invented or discovered?
It's iffy, and if they are discovered, it means -- blablablabla does it matter anyway.
*involving language, that is. From some musicians on this board (LMNO, RWHN) I get the idea they go in a much more freeflow intuitive manner. Maybe that's something different. Maybe not, I don't have enough experience with making music.
However, an interesting question is, regardless of whether mathematics is something really fundamental in our reality or whether it's just us describing how we observe our reality to work, see they say, "mathematics is the language of nature" or "is the universal language" or something.
So the idea is, if we were to meet a bunch of aliens or their artifacts or such, we would be able to exchange some meaning, or at least recognize mathematical things, their idea of math would be the same as ours.
But if math isn't discovered, but invented, then would that still be so?
000 - thanks. it never occurred to me to take the "language" approach and run with it - into puns and music, etc.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 10, 2009, 07:03:38 PM
You said this before, I still don't understand. You mean, Math is just a language, and nothing more, right?
Cause then I'm going to need your definition of "language". I have a few, but they won't entirely fit around mathematics.
A means by which to describe and/or communicate a concept.
To throw my own $.02 - mathematics is a language that allows us to express the relationships between things we call "numbers" in a given system. (Higher mathematics gets a very broad idea of what constitutes a number.) Mathematics can talk about geometry on a Euclidean plane or one with a non-zero Riemann curvature, arithmetic on a finite, countably infinite, or continuously infinite set of numbers, and any number of classes of relations and functions. Even if a mathematical system does indeed perfectly describe a system in the "real world," I'd argue for it being "invented," just as I'd argue that representational art was invented rather than discovered.
Quote from: rong on October 10, 2009, 07:10:18 PM
i think there's some strawmanning going on here. i'm not interested in whether math is real or not. i'm trying to decide if it was invented or discovered.
i'm still convinced that PI was discovered - in the sense that someone sat down and said, "hmm - i wonder what the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle is." and they discovered it was PI
(i will admit to some strawmanning here too, as i fully realize that PI is not a good representative for all of mathematics)
There is a subtle but significant difference between numbers and mathematics. Mathematics is a language that deals with numbers, groups of numbers, and their relationships. Maybe like "nouns" as opposed to "language" ?
Quote from: rong on October 10, 2009, 05:30:39 PM
wouldn't you agree, though, that the slope of the equation f(x) = x^2 is 2x whether calculus had been invented or not?
The word "equation" presumes algebra, the word "function" presumes something (don't remember what the most basic field that deals with functions is. Discrete analysis?) and the word "slope" presumes calculus. Kind of like asking whether people had constitutional rights before the invention of writing?
Math "is" an abstracted system that was invented to approximate certain aspects of reality. It usually does a fairly good job, but it is still an imposed pattern laid across Reality.
Pi "is" 3.14 in base 10. And ONLY in base 10.
In base 13, Pi "is" 3.1AC1049052A2C7.
Quote from: LMNO on October 11, 2009, 06:56:51 PM
Math "is" an abstracted system that was invented to approximate certain aspects of reality. It usually does a fairly good job, but it is still an imposed pattern laid across Reality.
Pi "is" 3.14 in base 10. And ONLY in base 10.
In base 13, Pi "is" 3.1AC1049052A2C7.
So then what's the ratio between the square of the radius of a circle and the area enclosed by the circle?
Quote from: GA on October 11, 2009, 07:36:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 11, 2009, 06:56:51 PM
Math "is" an abstracted system that was invented to approximate certain aspects of reality. It usually does a fairly good job, but it is still an imposed pattern laid across Reality.
Pi "is" 3.14 in base 10. And ONLY in base 10.
In base 13, Pi "is" 3.1AC1049052A2C7.
So then what's the ratio between the square of the radius of a circle and the area enclosed by the circle?
A mathematical expression of the relationship between the two.
That concept does not exist in nature. It is an artifical concept that is only possible within the stucture of the system we created.
Quote from: LMNO on October 11, 2009, 07:40:09 PM
That concept does not exist in nature. It is an artifical concept that is only possible within the stucture of the system we created.
[/quote
ALL CONCEPTS ARE ARTIFICIAL!
[/postmodernist]
Quote from: LMNO on October 11, 2009, 07:40:09 PM
That concept does not exist in nature. It is an artifical concept that is only possible within the stucture of the system we created.
I thought you were trying to say that pi doesn't really exist because it has a decimal notation approximation and a base-13 approximation.
I just want to know who thinks it is "a little bit of both" and have them try to explain how that would work, because trying to think about the ramifications of that position it is making my head 'splodey . . .
Quote from: GA on October 11, 2009, 08:14:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 11, 2009, 07:40:09 PM
That concept does not exist in nature. It is an artifical concept that is only possible within the stucture of the system we created.
I thought you were trying to say that pi doesn't really exist because it has a decimal notation approximation and a base-13 approximation.
maybe I'm saying a lot of things. Maybe I'm also saying that there is no place you can point to that equals "pi". Eventually, you have to approximate. Pi is a metaphor for a relationship that only exists in the framework of a created language.
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 01:54:15 AM
Quote from: GA on October 11, 2009, 08:14:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 11, 2009, 07:40:09 PM
That concept does not exist in nature. It is an artifical concept that is only possible within the stucture of the system we created.
I thought you were trying to say that pi doesn't really exist because it has a decimal notation approximation and a base-13 approximation.
maybe I'm saying a lot of things. Maybe I'm also saying that there is no place you can point to that equals "pi". Eventually, you have to approximate. Pi is a metaphor for a relationship that only exists in the framework of a created language.
Agreed, though I'm not convinced that it is completely accurate to define pi as being a metaphor - it seems to me that it is better to identify it as a genuine measurement - the issue lies in the very existence of Numbers and not in the ways in which we manipulate them, pi was
calculated based on the mathematical framework which devolved from the
creation of the
concept of Number. Also something that has been niggling me since further up the thread is that IF mathematics is the language of the universe don't you think that its a bit weird that the universe only speaks to humans . . .
Quote from: MMIX on October 12, 2009, 03:06:34 AM
Agreed, though I'm not convinced that it is completely accurate to define pi as being a metaphor - it seems to me that it is better to identify it as a genuine measurement - the issue lies in the very existence of Numbers and not in the ways in which we manipulate them, pi was calculated based on the mathematical framework which devolved from the creation of the concept of Number. Also something that has been niggling me since further up the thread is that IF mathematics is the language of the universe don't you think that its a bit weird that the universe only speaks to humans . . .
But, you can't calculate PI. Name one thing it is a genuine measurement of.
Mathematics is the language of the universe to humans in the same way that the highway code is the language of the road to an ant.
But no one here said it was the language of the universe. The post in question was talking about "they say".
Math isn't the language of the universe. Math is the language we use to describe the universe.
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 03:22:31 AM
But no one here said it was the language of the universe. The post in question was talking about "they say".
Math isn't the language of the universe. Math is the language we use to describe the universe.
I agree, and I was agreeing. I guess that wasn't immediately clear. Or expected.
Math is most certainly a constructed, invented thing. However, within that construct, there is much to discover. For example, Pi the number can be considered an invention. On the other hand, the fact that there is a relationship between the radius and circumference/area of a circle is something discoverable within the construct of math. In fact, that it is equal to (or approximated by) 3.14... in base 10 may be discoverable. Our construction of base 10 once again lies within invented.
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 12, 2009, 03:16:37 AM
But, you can't calculate PI. Name one thing it is a genuine measurement of.
But I don't NEED to calculate pi . . . its already been done:-
QuoteIn the twentieth century there have been two important developments:
the invention of electronic computers and the discovery of much more
powerful formulas for pi. For example, in 1910 the great Indian
mathematician Ramanujan discovered a formula that in 1985 was used to
compute pi to 17 million digits.
Other even better methods have been developed since, and computers are
getting ever more powerful. The current record is about 51 billion
decimal places.
-Doctor Wilkinson, The Math Forum
Therefore the answer to your second point is that the search for the ultimate pi is a genuine measure of the obsessive nature of the mathematical fraternity and their desperate need to get out of their mothers' basements . . .
QuoteQuote from: fictionpuss
Mathematics is the language of the universe to humans in the same way that the highway code is the language of the road to an ant.
This could be taken in at least two ways
1] Maths rolls over people like trucks roll over ants - possibly my favourite as maths = not my fave
OR
2]When I said universal language I was jiving off the "belief" [yep, notice them scare quotes] that there is an underlying mathematical "reality" which can be accessed and shared across human linguistic barriers and potentially alien species boundaries. I'm not at all convinced that mathematics is universal in that sense - though re-reading my post I don't think I was sufficiently clear on that point
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 01:54:15 AM
Quote from: GA on October 11, 2009, 08:14:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 11, 2009, 07:40:09 PM
That concept does not exist in nature. It is an artifical concept that is only possible within the stucture of the system we created.
I thought you were trying to say that pi doesn't really exist because it has a decimal notation approximation and a base-13 approximation.
maybe I'm saying a lot of things. Maybe I'm also saying that there is no place you can point to that equals "pi". Eventually, you have to approximate. Pi is a metaphor for a relationship that only exists in the framework of a created language.
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 12, 2009, 03:16:37 AM
Name one thing it is a genuine measurement of..
I WILL KILL A MOTHERFUCKER
There are plenty of things that are exactly equal to pi. Pi is one-half the period of the sine and cosine functions, for starters. It shows up in integrals, derivatives, and differential equations all the time as well, e.g.,
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/4/6/d463469506c61944b45ff4362391779e.png)
There are also a ton of infinite series and continued fractions that converge to pi - Euler found a lot of really cool ones.
Pi isn't a metaphor for a relationship - pi is the relationship. Decimal approximations are an approximation; pi itself is not.
QuotePi is one-half the period of the sine and cosine functions, for starters.
The period of a sine or cosine function is based on the percentage of a circle traveled. pi related because pi is 1/4th of the circumference of a circle of radius one *by definition*. (even then its kindof artificial, I can use 90 degrees instead of pi just as easily)
You can get pi out of the other equation you described because thats also related to a circle.
I just want to mention that the perfect circle does not exist. In order to calculate the ratio of a circle as wide as the currently visible universe, accurate to the proton, you only need Pi up to the 52nd decimal.
So, no I don't really understand what those Japanese in the pi decimal memorization contests were about, either.
And GA, you can't really measure those formulas, can you?
IMO, all irrational numbers are made-up bullshit. Useful for approximating real things, but don't get it the wrong way around, those numbers are the approximations, a reasonable guess of a real world measurement, assuming ideal conditions. "Ideal conditions" of course means "never gonna happen".
If you're building a square of wood or something and you need to know the length of the diagonal, the square root of two is a real good guess (the best guess, really) of the actual length of the piece of wood you're gonna need. But it's not the length you're gonna end up with, because pieces of wood that are exactly the square root of two times as long as another piece of wood, simply do not exist.
Fractions I have a bit more confidence in, but I'm still suspicious. Natural numbers, however, seem pretty solid so far.
Quote from: GA on October 12, 2009, 04:45:39 AM
Pi isn't a metaphor for a relationship - pi is the relationship. Decimal approximations are an approximation; pi itself is not.
Pi is a relationship of two metaphors.
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 12:50:22 PM
Quote from: GA on October 12, 2009, 04:45:39 AM
Pi isn't a metaphor for a relationship - pi is the relationship. Decimal approximations are an approximation; pi itself is not.
Pi is a relationship of two metaphors.
But if you all donate $1 to me, we can get them divorced!
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 12, 2009, 12:31:18 PM
Natural numbers, however, seem pretty solid so far.
BAN GENETICALLY MODIFIED NUMBERS!
first off - thanks for everyone's input.
i think maybe i shouldn't have said anything about Pi - because it kinda got everything off track.
maybe instead i should've said how the hell could e
ix = cos(x) +
i sin(x) have been invented? i'll conced that e
x was invented (even though i don't necessarily think it was) and i'll concede that
i, cos and sin were invented, too. but if all these were
invented independently of each other - doesn't that mean that their relationship to each other was discovered?
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 12, 2009, 12:31:18 PM
If you're building a square of wood or something and you need to know the length of the diagonal, the square root of two is a real good guess (the best guess, really) of the actual length of the piece of wood you're gonna need. But it's not the length you're gonna end up with, because pieces of wood that are exactly the square root of two times as long as another piece of wood, simply do not exist.
Fractions I have a bit more confidence in, but I'm still suspicious. Natural numbers, however, seem pretty solid so far.
i think any argument made to say that a piece of wood cannot be of an irrational length can be extended to say that a piece of wood cannot be of any length.
also - that was a really cool bit of info about needing 52 digits of pi to get the size of the visible universe accurate to a proton. out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to know how many digits to get the accuracy down to an electron or planck length, would you?
Well, let's make an analogy: "Horror" is from the Latin horrre, 'to tremble'. "Mirth" is from the Middle English myrgth. Each word was invented independently of each other, over a span of hundreds of years.
So, was "Horrormirth" discovered to describe a particular human situation, or was it invented to do so because the description worked within the language?
Quote from: GA on October 12, 2009, 04:45:39 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 12, 2009, 03:16:37 AM
Name one thing it is a genuine measurement of..
I WILL KILL A MOTHERFUCKER
There are plenty of things that are exactly equal to pi.
I meant "genuine" in the sense of "real" - there are no real measurable things which exist in the universe which equal pi, as far as I know.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 12, 2009, 12:14:12 PM
I just want to mention that the perfect circle does not exist. In order to calculate the ratio of a circle as wide as the currently visible universe, accurate to the proton, you only need Pi up to the 52nd decimal.
That's one of my favourite math facts!
Quote from: rong on October 12, 2009, 02:53:14 PM
i think any argument made to say that a piece of wood cannot be of an irrational length can be extended to say that a piece of wood cannot be of any length.
I think we can bypass Xeno by asking you how you define length - do you go by the electron cloud orbits at either extent, or the current position of the electrons in their orbits at the given instant of measurement, or...? Is length itself an invention? At best, usable real-world length seems to be definable as a lower and upper bound with an estimated degree of error.
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 12, 2009, 03:40:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 12, 2009, 12:14:12 PM
I just want to mention that the perfect circle does not exist. In order to calculate the ratio of a circle as wide as the currently visible universe, accurate to the proton, you only need Pi up to the 52nd decimal.
That's one of my favourite math facts!
Wouldn't that be considered "science" more than "math"?
Yes. Well, math being a language, therefore technology and science being an investigative method.
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 03:43:41 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 12, 2009, 03:40:10 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 12, 2009, 12:14:12 PM
I just want to mention that the perfect circle does not exist. In order to calculate the ratio of a circle as wide as the currently visible universe, accurate to the proton, you only need Pi up to the 52nd decimal.
That's one of my favourite math facts!
Wouldn't that be considered "science" more than "math"?
Depends on how you look at it. From the point where the statement says something about Pi, it is about math. From the point where the statement says something about the size of the universe and the amount of precision you need, it is science, or physics .. um wait I am confused, did you mean science? Cause math is a science.
Quote from: rong on October 12, 2009, 02:53:14 PMmaybe instead i should've said how the hell could eix = cos(x) + i sin(x) have been invented? i'll conced that ex was invented (even though i don't necessarily think it was) and i'll concede that i, cos and sin were invented, too. but if all these were invented independently of each other - doesn't that mean that their relationship to each other was discovered?
interesting idea.
I also don't think LMNO's analogy really holds. Combining the words "horror" and "mirth" to "horrormirth" is something different than figuring out that e
pi * i + 1 = 0 . Combining "horror" and "mirth" is more like 2 + 3 = 5. The difference is that numbers like 2 and 3 were invented to work for addition, so this is no surprise. In a similar way, words in a language are meant to be concatenated to form new words (regardless of their etymology). 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).
But then is the question, when is an invention a discovery? If you find a new mersenne prime, did you invent or discover it?
Quotealso - that was a really cool bit of info about needing 52 digits of pi to get the size of the visible universe accurate to a proton. out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to know how many digits to get the accuracy down to an electron or planck length, would you?
no but I bet that given the proton accuracy requires 52, you should be able to work it out, no?
Ok, I think I know what's going on here. Aaaaaaaand it's semantics. Again.
Some people seem to be using "discover" to describe finding something in the experiential universe that you didn't know was there before: The earth being round, for example.
Some people seem to be using "invent" to describe the creation of the series of rules that govern our attempts to describe the experiential universe, and later to describe artificial or imaginary universes.
Some people are saying that there are relationships and properties of these rules that were not known when the rules were initially created, and are saying they are "discovered", because we didn't know they were there.
Some people are saying that because the rules were invented, then all the relationships and the properties were also "invented".
And now we are using increasingly complex examples in order to either clarify or confuse our arguments.
I tend to think of Mathematics as an Emergent system - you can invent the rules, but you don't invent the relationships which emerge from the application of those rules.
But those relationships wouldn't exist without the rules.
Oh I wish IANAR was here.
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 03:22:31 AM
But no one here said it was the language of the universe. The post in question was talking about "they say".
Math isn't the language of the universe. Math is the language we use to describe the universe.
There's a BIP phrase for this, but I absolutely refuse to sully my keyboard by typing it.
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 04:33:46 PM
But those relationships wouldn't exist without the rules.
Vedic mathematicians may disagree.
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 12, 2009, 04:32:22 PM
I tend to think of Mathematics as an Emergent system -
Crap.
Here we go.
The Map is Not the Territory.
Don't Eat the Menu.
Emergent Systems.
Fnord.
Did I miss anything?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 12, 2009, 04:38:27 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 12, 2009, 04:32:22 PM
I tend to think of Mathematics as an Emergent system -
Crap.
Here we go.
The Map is Not the Territory.
Don't Eat the Menu.
Emergent Systems.
Fnord.
Did I miss anything?
Law of Fives, naturally.
Also, "sombunall".
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
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.
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'm trying to find an example which describes it as effortlessly as the video does..
Quote from: Rurouzaru on October 12, 2009, 04:26:00 AM
Math is most certainly a constructed, invented thing. However, within that construct, there is much to discover. For example, Pi the number can be considered an invention. On the other hand, the fact that there is a relationship between the radius and circumference/area of a circle is something discoverable within the construct of math. In fact, that it is equal to (or approximated by) 3.14... in base 10 may be discoverable. Our construction of base 10 once again lies within invented.
this makes the most sense to me out of what has been said so far
but now that TGRR has said
Quotethe map is not the territory
Don't Eat the Menu.
Emergent Systems.
Fnord.
i think we may be in a dangerous "dividing by zero" type discussion here and thread locking needs to be considered
Quote from: fictionpuss on October 12, 2009, 04:47:34 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'm trying to find an example which describes it as effortlessly as the video does..
The Vedas are also an invention of language. The basic argument does not change.
It's for weak cowards who can't stand the rigor of Roger Prime.
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.
So, can Roger Prime be used to say:
"Math is both invented and discovered. But it was invented first, fuckos."
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."
Can you discover things inside of a language?
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?
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.
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."
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.
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:
Too late: We have invented Roger Prime, and are discovering new ways to use it.
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".
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:
(http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/spiff_bucket/v.jpg)
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.
Quoteif two different rulesets come up with the same relationship, then the relationship exists without either rule set
Not necessarily.
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
:?
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.
So, to put that in Roger Prime:
"Who cares what you call it? I just want to know if it will tell me how to blow shit up."
Yes.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 12, 2009, 08:47:52 AM
QuotePi is one-half the period of the sine and cosine functions, for starters.
The period of a sine or cosine function is based on the percentage of a circle traveled. pi related because pi is 1/4th of the circumference of a circle of radius one *by definition*. (even then its kindof artificial, I can use 90 degrees instead of pi just as easily)
You can get pi out of the other equation you described because thats also related to a circle.
Sine and cosine don't have to be defined as relating to a circle at all (and in rigorous math usually isn't) - you can define them by their Taylor series, for instance, or a number of other things.
You can interpret the other equation as related to a circle, or not. That's the Lo5 bit - whether you see it as connected to a hemicircle, or just an arbitrary function of x. Regardless, it shows that there is something exactly equal to pi without any notion of geometry being presupposed.
But that "something" exists purely in the framework of your rules. It doesn't exist in nature.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 12, 2009, 12:31:18 PM
And GA, you can't really measure those formulas, can you?
IMO, all irrational numbers are made-up bullshit. Useful for approximating real things, but don't get it the wrong way around, those numbers are the approximations, a reasonable guess of a real world measurement, assuming ideal conditions. "Ideal conditions" of course means "never gonna happen".
1. Measurement doesn't happen in Math.
2. Of course it's made up bullshit.
Math is made up bullshit. Sometimes it is useful bullshit. Most of the time, not so much.
Quote from: LMNO on October 12, 2009, 06:57:44 PM
But that "something" exists purely in the framework of your rules. It doesn't exist in nature.
Yes.
ETA: I was just showing that pi wasn't an approximation. It is itself.
Quote from: fictionpuss on 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:
(http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/spiff_bucket/v.jpg)
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.
So, basically, it's the Trachtenberg system with hippie shit glued to it.
Quote from: fomenter on 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
:?
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Quote from: fomenter on 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
:?
What TGRR said.
If the two independently developed math systems are identical in substance, all that means is that the two groups chose the same axioms (or the axioms chosen can be shown to be logically equivalent.)
Two independently developed math systems need not be identical in substance - even on Earth this is true.
Plus, you know, no aliens as of yet have landed to show us their awesome maths skills.
(http://x55.xanga.com/973c92e702d33200677993/w155522045.jpg)
the :? was to indicate that i don't know, more of a question than statement...
i was under the impression that all math was math (higher math compared to other higher math i am lost) but if i used hash marks and squiggles to determine the ratio of a circles diameter to its circumference it would be equal to PI regardless of where it was developed or what symbols were used?? or am i wrong?
Quote from: fomenter on October 12, 2009, 09:31:28 PM
the :? was to indicate that i don't know, more of a question than statement...
i was under the impression that all math was math (higher math compared to other higher math i am lost) but if i used hash marks and squiggles to determine the ratio of a circles diameter to its circumference it would be equal to PI regardless of where it was developed or what symbols were used?? or am i wrong?
Another culture wouldn't necessarily measure lines, saying that a circle is composed of an infinite number of points ans leaving it at that. They might not define the distance in "all the points a distance R from point 0" the same way, or even have a Cartesian coordinate system.
you have lost me a bit (my math is not great so type slow) those ideas seem to be alternative ways of looking at things using the language of math they don't seem to be outside the language of math only a different part of math, if you saw enough of what they did you could take it it apart and understand what it described, and if you showed them pi they would be able to do the same and understand what it meant?
my description "identical in substance" is just to sloppy to convey what the universality of math means (i don't really have my head around it well enough to do better)
Another culture's math will be similar, because they are describing the same universe we live in.
If they come up with the concept of an Ideal circle, then eventually they will come up with something resembling 22/7.
Quote from: LMNO on October 13, 2009, 03:35:57 AM
If they come up with the concept of an Ideal circle, then eventually they will come up with something resembling 22/7.
And they'll probably have stabbed THEIR guy that figured it out, too.
Nobody likes a smartass.
Oddly, this discussion was going on in Champions Online today. The existence of math as a phenomenon is something I accept as having been a truth prior to our ability to grasp it. Once we were able to grasp it we invented the language to quantify and express our grasp of the concept. The language changes from time to time to better equate what we have gleaned from our explorations of the basic truths underlying what we first saw when we began the undertaking of developing the language of mathematics.
My apologies if this was said more eloquently earlier, I just wanted to chime in.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 13, 2009, 03:58:01 AM
Oddly, this discussion was going on in Champions Online today. The existence of math as a phenomenon is something I accept as having been a truth prior to our ability to grasp it.
Yeah, okay. How much mass does it have?
That depends on what IT is I should think.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 13, 2009, 04:55:29 AM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 13, 2009, 03:58:01 AM
Oddly, this discussion was going on in Champions Online today. The existence of math as a phenomenon is something I accept as having been a truth prior to our ability to grasp it.
Yeah, okay. How much mass does it have?
how much mass does gravity have?
(sorry, couldn't help it)
in all seriousness, i appreciate all the thought and responses. i'm getting the feeling that, for the most part, the consensus is that it's a little bit of both. (even though the poll results show the strongest belief to be that it was invented).
i think it's interesting how many times the universe and reality keep coming up in this discussion. i think this is a distraction.
i'm glad you made the map/territory argument, roger - however, i don't think it had the desired effect. (i hate to derail this off the topic of math but . . .) is the map invented or discovered? i would argue that preliminary maps are invented, but as the territory is used to perfect the map, eventually one should be able to have the perfect map (an exact copy of the territory). since the territory is not invented (i.e. it was there before you bumbled along making maps) then the ONE TRUE MAP of the territory could not have been invented - as it is merely a copy of the territory - and was therefore discovered.
- - - - pauses to look at the newly fallen snow - - - -
i think now, the question as to whether math was invented or discovered is akin to asking whether there is an underlying territory that it describes. as long as "our universe" is the believed underlying territory, it seems the consensus is that math is invented. we've been trying for X years (yes that was sort of a bad joke) to make the ONE TRUE MAP of the universe and math, so far, can't do it.
however, i think my real question is: Is there a different underlying territory to math? or is it just a bunch of symbols? it certainly
seems like there's something at the bottom of it all, making it work (at least to me, and perhaps a few others). but what is it? Logic? If so, is Logic another type of math? was it invented or discovered?
Hold on. I think we're conflating math and science again.
Math is a series of game rules. Once those rules are "invented" and established, different relationships can be "discovered".
The game rules do not have to adhere to anything we find inside this universe.
Quote from: rong on October 13, 2009, 02:12:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 13, 2009, 04:55:29 AM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 13, 2009, 03:58:01 AM
Oddly, this discussion was going on in Champions Online today. The existence of math as a phenomenon is something I accept as having been a truth prior to our ability to grasp it.
Yeah, okay. How much mass does it have?
You can measure gravity's effect.
Quote from: LMNO on October 13, 2009, 02:29:15 PM
Hold on. I think we're conflating math and science again.
Math is a series of game rules. Once those rules are "invented" and established, different relationships can be "discovered".
The game rules do not have to adhere to anything we find inside this universe.
No, I retract my postion. Math was discovered. It always existed. So did writing, civics, and home ec.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 13, 2009, 07:52:48 AM
That depends on what IT is I should think.
I think we just said what it is, you jabbering fucking lackwit. I think it's, you know, RIGHT IN THE FUCKING POST TITLE.
You.
FUCKING.
Moron.
Now that we've invented Roger Prime, your outbursts aren't just pleasing to the eye, they're educational, too.
LMNO
-Learning more every day.
Quote from: LMNO on October 13, 2009, 02:36:35 PM
Now that we've invented Roger Prime, your outbursts aren't just pleasing to the eye, they're educational, too.
LMNO
-Learning more every day.
I try to help people. :)
Quote from: GA on October 12, 2009, 06:55:25 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 12, 2009, 08:47:52 AM
QuotePi is one-half the period of the sine and cosine functions, for starters.
The period of a sine or cosine function is based on the percentage of a circle traveled. pi related because pi is 1/4th of the circumference of a circle of radius one *by definition*. (even then its kindof artificial, I can use 90 degrees instead of pi just as easily)
You can get pi out of the other equation you described because thats also related to a circle.
Sine and cosine don't have to be defined as relating to a circle at all (and in rigorous math usually isn't) - you can define them by their Taylor series, for instance, or a number of other things.
You can interpret the other equation as related to a circle, or not. That's the Lo5 bit - whether you see it as connected to a hemicircle, or just an arbitrary function of x. Regardless, it shows that there is something exactly equal to pi without any notion of geometry being presupposed.
:?
Sin and Cos are functions of angles, angles are fractions of circles.
And no, it doesn't show that something is equal to pi without having geometry exist. Because the operation in question, the integral from -1 to 1, measures the area of the function. that equation is basically 'what is the area of (1/half a circle).
ran across this interesting one yesterday
(http://www.math.montana.edu/mathed/distance/capstone/kershner/activities/warm_up_aliens.jpg)
Seven, of course. But I'm not sure how that applies.
Edit: That was a bit snarky. A nice subtle I3! reference, as well.
It does bring up the interesting idea of what a numbering system would look like for a race of hyperintelligent amoebas, though.
(http://www.macguff.fr/goomi/unspeakable/WEBIMAGES/CARTOON/w040-non-euclidian.jpg)
Quote from: LMNO on October 13, 2009, 02:29:15 PM
Math is a series of game rules. Once those rules are "invented" and established, different relationships can be "discovered".
yay. thanks for both clearing up the difference between "invent" and "discover" and applying it to the question ITT at the same time. and doing it so succinctly.
QuoteThe game rules do not have to adhere to anything we find inside this universe.
I also agree with this, but while it is easy to conflate, I don't think it has much influence on the answer to the question whether math was invented or discovered. Because, as you write above, even in an invented bunch of game rules you can discover relationships. Like the "glider" in Conway's game of life. Apart from a vague and very simplified analogy to biology, it doesn't adhere to our universe, but once you invent the game rules, you get to discover patterns like "gliders".
Btw in other news, recently I solved the chicken/egg problem. The egg came first cause chickens evolved from dinos and dinos already laid eggs. It was a moment of clarity and ever since I've not been able to figure out what the big deal was about it in the first place. There's a corrolary (sp?) when you limit yourself to "chicken eggs" and chickens, but that one's not too hard to figure out either once you got this bit (although in that case it was the chicken).
So I have a related question, which is a point that Roger and I somewhat disagree on.
Is the study of mathematics a science?
Quote from: Nigel on October 14, 2009, 12:04:45 AM
So I have a related question, which is a point that Roger and I somewhat disagree on.
Is the study of mathematics a science?
In the sense of whether it should be rewarded with the same kind of prestige as other studies that are considered a science: yes.
In the sense of the nitpicky definition semantics question: I don't really care anymore :)
Quote from: Nigel on October 14, 2009, 12:04:45 AM
So I have a related question, which is a point that Roger and I somewhat disagree on.
Is the study of mathematics a science?
Nope. It's linguistics.
:troll:
I'm gonna go with no. Scientific process (running experiments and general observation) is a very different thing than doing logical proofs.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 14, 2009, 12:12:42 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 14, 2009, 12:04:45 AM
So I have a related question, which is a point that Roger and I somewhat disagree on.
Is the study of mathematics a science?
Nope. It's linguistics.
:troll:
I'd agree, except that linguistics also includes things like polling people to see what word they use for soft drinks/soda/coke.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Sodavspopvscoke.png
I'd give you that mathematics can be reduced to computational linguistics, however.
Quote from: GA on October 14, 2009, 12:21:50 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 14, 2009, 12:12:42 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 14, 2009, 12:04:45 AM
So I have a related question, which is a point that Roger and I somewhat disagree on.
Is the study of mathematics a science?
Nope. It's linguistics.
:troll:
I'd agree, except that linguistics also includes things like polling people to see what word they use for soft drinks/soda/coke.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Sodavspopvscoke.png
I'd give you that mathematics can be reduced to computational linguistics, however.
That's not real linguistics. That's pandering to slang, and the people doing it should be horsewhipped.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 13, 2009, 02:33:10 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 13, 2009, 07:52:48 AM
That depends on what IT is I should think.
I think we just said what it is, you jabbering fucking lackwit. I think it's, you know, RIGHT IN THE FUCKING POST TITLE.
You.
FUCKING.
Moron.
Math doesn't have mass ya dillweed! Objects have mass like yer overwhelming, if not well earned, EGO!
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 14, 2009, 08:21:42 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 13, 2009, 02:33:10 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 13, 2009, 07:52:48 AM
That depends on what IT is I should think.
I think we just said what it is, you jabbering fucking lackwit. I think it's, you know, RIGHT IN THE FUCKING POST TITLE.
You.
FUCKING.
Moron.
Math doesn't have mass ya dillweed! Objects have mass like yer overwhelming, if not well earned, EGO!
:facepalm:
While talking with my bass player about this, he had an interesting comment. He said that the concept of Zero was not invented, but rather it appeared as an inevitability after the game rule of "one" was invented.
Because, even though positive integers were used for centuries without it, the appearance of Zero was guaranteed to happen eventually.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 14, 2009, 08:21:42 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 13, 2009, 02:33:10 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 13, 2009, 07:52:48 AM
That depends on what IT is I should think.
I think we just said what it is, you jabbering fucking lackwit. I think it's, you know, RIGHT IN THE FUCKING POST TITLE.
You.
FUCKING.
Moron.
Math doesn't have mass ya dillweed! Objects have mass like yer overwhelming, if not well earned, EGO!
Sir, my ego is made from neutronium. Yours would be too, if you remembered a thing or two.
Quote from: LMNO on October 14, 2009, 02:21:19 PM
While talking with my bass player about this, he had an interesting comment. He said that the concept of Zero was not invented, but rather it appeared as an inevitability after the game rule of "one" was invented.
Because, even though positive integers were used for centuries without it, the appearance of Zero was guaranteed to happen eventually.
You mean to say that the probability of it being discovered, given sufficient time....
approaches one?
Quote from: Cain on October 14, 2009, 03:21:25 PM
Quote from: LMNO on October 14, 2009, 02:21:19 PM
While talking with my bass player about this, he had an interesting comment. He said that the concept of Zero was not invented, but rather it appeared as an inevitability after the game rule of "one" was invented.
Because, even though positive integers were used for centuries without it, the appearance of Zero was guaranteed to happen eventually.
You mean to say that the probability of it being discovered, given sufficient time....approaches one?
:crankey:
That's it. Someone turn off the Internet.
:thanks:
I've always liked the number one, it just seems more unique than any of the others.
Also, someone opened a can of awesome within PD.
Quote from: Cain on October 14, 2009, 03:24:29 PM
:thanks:
You shall pay for your crimes one fine day, Cain.
I've asked this question before, but
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/bin/fractart/6.png)
Did I Make, or Discover this fractal image?
It depends. How was it generated?
I used a computer program called chaospro
this is actually two fractal images overlaid, definitely an artistic choice. But aside from that, pretend this was just a straight zoom into the mandlebrot.
http://www.dessci.com/en/products/mathplayer
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 14, 2009, 03:35:08 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 14, 2009, 03:24:29 PM
:thanks:
You shall pay for your crimes one fine day, Cain.
Does the probability of my punishment also approach one, given sufficient time?
Quote from: Cramulus on October 14, 2009, 04:46:08 PM
I used a computer program called chaospro
this is actually two fractal images overlaid, definitely an artistic choice. But aside from that, pretend this was just a straight zoom into the mandlebrot.
You made that image, using the program. You then discovered what it looks like, because your math isn't as good as the computer's.
Quote from: LMNO on October 14, 2009, 04:50:08 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 14, 2009, 04:46:08 PM
I used a computer program called chaospro
this is actually two fractal images overlaid, definitely an artistic choice. But aside from that, pretend this was just a straight zoom into the mandlebrot.
You made that image, using the program. You then discovered what it looks like, because your math isn't as good as the computer's.
Wait a minute... aren't tools considered part of the extended mind (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=22112.0)?
I said nothing of the sort.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 14, 2009, 03:02:50 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 14, 2009, 08:21:42 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 13, 2009, 02:33:10 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 13, 2009, 07:52:48 AM
That depends on what IT is I should think.
I think we just said what it is, you jabbering fucking lackwit. I think it's, you know, RIGHT IN THE FUCKING POST TITLE.
You.
FUCKING.
Moron.
Math doesn't have mass ya dillweed! Objects have mass like yer overwhelming, if not well earned, EGO!
Sir, my ego is made from neutronium. Yours would be too, if you remembered a thing or two.
I remember lotsa things...except what happened last week...and maybe most of the latter 80's, but that was because I spent the ages of 16 to 21 drunk. But still I remember...stuff...and things. :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on October 14, 2009, 05:10:11 PM
I said nothing of the sort.
Er sorry, my comment seems to make no sense at all, and I have no idea what I was originally thinking.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 14, 2009, 05:12:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 14, 2009, 03:02:50 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 14, 2009, 08:21:42 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 13, 2009, 02:33:10 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 13, 2009, 07:52:48 AM
That depends on what IT is I should think.
I think we just said what it is, you jabbering fucking lackwit. I think it's, you know, RIGHT IN THE FUCKING POST TITLE.
You.
FUCKING.
Moron.
Math doesn't have mass ya dillweed! Objects have mass like yer overwhelming, if not well earned, EGO!
Sir, my ego is made from neutronium. Yours would be too, if you remembered a thing or two.
I remember lotsa things...except what happened last week...and maybe most of the latter 80's, but that was because I spent the ages of 16 to 21 drunk. But still I remember...stuff...and things. :lulz:
But not the RIGHT stuff and things. Your ego is a small, weak thing that yearns to be some Godzilla-esque monstrosity that exists only TO STOMP MONKEYS FLAT AND SHIT ON THE RESULTING STAIN! You forgot that you're a goddamn SUPERMAN, a fucking GOD that dwells on this planet for the sole purpose of SMITING THE UNWORTHY AND STOMPING OFF SET, HOWLING AND ROARING LIKE THE FUCKING BEAST YOU ARE.
When you remember that, and stop filling your kidneys full of poison and your brain full of Conspiracy programming, THEN you can claim that you remember.
Until then, you're just another monkey.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 14, 2009, 05:25:29 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 14, 2009, 05:12:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 14, 2009, 03:02:50 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 14, 2009, 08:21:42 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 13, 2009, 02:33:10 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 13, 2009, 07:52:48 AM
That depends on what IT is I should think.
I think we just said what it is, you jabbering fucking lackwit. I think it's, you know, RIGHT IN THE FUCKING POST TITLE.
You.
FUCKING.
Moron.
Math doesn't have mass ya dillweed! Objects have mass like yer overwhelming, if not well earned, EGO!
Sir, my ego is made from neutronium. Yours would be too, if you remembered a thing or two.
I remember lotsa things...except what happened last week...and maybe most of the latter 80's, but that was because I spent the ages of 16 to 21 drunk. But still I remember...stuff...and things. :lulz:
But not the RIGHT stuff and things. Your ego is a small, weak thing that yearns to be some Godzilla-esque monstrosity that exists only TO STOMP MONKEYS FLAT AND SHIT ON THE RESULTING STAIN! You forgot that you're a goddamn SUPERMAN, a fucking GOD that dwells on this planet for the sole purpose of SMITING THE UNWORTHY AND STOMPING OFF SET, HOWLING AND ROARING LIKE THE FUCKING BEAST YOU ARE.
When you remember that, and stop filling your kidneys full of poison and your brain full of Conspiracy programming, THEN you can claim that you remember.
Until then, you're just another monkey.
Been off the sauce for years ya angry old fart, as for programming, you might want to think about what its fuckin like with noone to talk to except the fuckin monkeys. You have folks that have had their eyes opened, i have to dig for tid bits of truth and glean what I can from websites like this while dealing with your jack assery. But thanks for sharing.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 15, 2009, 02:38:53 AM
Been off the sauce for years ya angry old fart, as for programming, you might want to think about what its fuckin like with noone to talk to except the fuckin monkeys. You have folks that have had their eyes opened, i have to dig for tid bits of truth and glean what I can from websites like this while dealing with your jack assery. But thanks for sharing.
What, did you think we were just gonna TELL you things? Fuck no, that takes all the fun out of being a Holy Man. Those parables aren't to teach you stuff, they're just a way to fuck with you AND give us old fuckers an excuse to run our jaws.
Jesus did it, and hell, he stole the idea from Buddha. Make 'em think you said something profound, when all you did was tell a jimmy joke.
(Note: There's something important in there, but you'll have to figure it out for yourself. No, really.)
Fuck you for thinking this might have been easy for you.
Quote from: LMNO on October 15, 2009, 03:05:24 AM
Fuck you for thinking this might have been easy for you.
Nothing in my life has been easy man. No reason to change that now. I have learned every job i ever had by being tossed in the deep end with the sharks to see if I can swim. You guys aint nothing I haven't seen before. Just better educated than the lot around here.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 15, 2009, 03:41:43 AM
Quote from: LMNO on October 15, 2009, 03:05:24 AM
Fuck you for thinking this might have been easy for you.
Nothing in my life has been easy man.
WHOA WHOA WHOA! As God is my witness, I stopped right there.
For your own good, you understand. That's heading down a road that Planeswalker could tell you a thing or two about.
Now, you want a chance to edit that, or should I just go ahead and read it?
Doesn't matter man. i respect you guys alot because of your straightforward way of being and calling me on how I term things. but you know what? I don't have the fuckin energy to play all these fuckin games. I thought being Discordian was about being apart from everyone else and looking at the world thru a different lens, not being bastards to new people who just don't know what the fuck is goin on. I'll just be the big pussy and sod off. I haven't been this antagonistic in years and I don't fuckin like it.
EDIT: I was gonna remove this, but i am gonna leave it to remind me how much of a dumbass I can be at times.
Enjoy going with the flow. I hope you find your Utopia where everyone agrees with whatever stupid thing you say. It's the Internet, I'm thinking you won't have to go far.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 15, 2009, 04:39:00 AM
Doesn't matter man. i respect you guys alot because of your straightforward way of being and calling me on how I term things. but you know what? I don't have the fuckin energy to play all these fuckin games. I thought being Discordian was about being apart from everyone else and looking at the world thru a different lens, not being bastards to new people who just don't know what the fuck is goin on. I'll just be the big pussy and sod off. I haven't been this antagonistic in years and I don't fuckin like it.
Sorry to hear it, but I suppose not everyone can be
serious about having a good time.
This is no day and age to half-ass things.
Quote from: LMNO on October 15, 2009, 04:48:16 AM
Enjoy going with the flow. I hope you find your Utopia where everyone agrees with whatever stupid thing you say. It's the Internet, I'm thinking you won't have to go far.
Okay, so here I am, all ready to just throw in the towel right? Well I start thinking that I never gave up my entire fuckin life...okay well there was that one time, but she woulda been bad news anyway. You wanna know what my Utopia is man? It's a place where I know where I fucking stand. You think I'm fulla shit and a dumbass, I think you are a jackass. That doesn'tr mean I don't like you cause all my pals are jackasses and I tell them that regularly. Nice to know you.
Now, why the hell can't math have existed as an abstract (might not be the right word)? I mean, if everything is essentially chaos then the language that developed around the idea of maths to describe the chaos in quantifiable terms is a pretty normal thing for so-called sentients aint it? That's why we have to re-examine the whole physics thing periodically because as we learn more we have to develop new ways of understanding all the crap we learn. Or am I completely mistaken?
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 15, 2009, 05:24:23 AM
Well I start thinking that I never gave up my entire fuckin life...okay well there was that one time, but she woulda been bad news anyway.
Aw, hell no. That's when you take it right to the wall.
You kids...ya just don't know how to rock n roll.
What can I say man? I didn't say it was the right choice, just that she woulda been trouble. Trouble CAN be fun.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 15, 2009, 05:36:14 AM
What can I say man? I didn't say it was the right choice, just that she woulda been trouble. Trouble CAN be fun.
Trouble is always fun. Trust dirty old Uncle Roger on that one, if you never listen to anything else I say. Especially when that fun is likely to beat the hell out of random strangers, pistol whip people, and drink WAY too much rum. But the Rolling Stones always set her straight, and she had a way of stating her case that was very hard to beat. On the other hand, she stole my fucking cigars constantly, and did horrible things to the neighbors.
But that was back in the good old days, when we thought nothing of chowing on peyote and puking off the balcony onto the meth heads far below, while Mick Jagger howled out
Sympathy for the Devil, and Monday was just another sleep in morning.
It couldn't last, and of course it didn't, but it was a hoot and it's always good to know that no matter how crazy things got, or how many laws we broke, we could still fuck up the religious neighbors' heads with wanton balcony sex.
Good times.
:eek::1fap:
:mittens:
Also, 0 = 2.
Quote from: Telarus on October 15, 2009, 07:14:21 AM
:eek::1fap:
:mittens:
Also, 0 = 2.
It's 0134 here and right now you could tell me that Moose = 2 and I would be okay with that
Quote from: LMNO on October 14, 2009, 02:21:19 PMfor centuries without it, the appearance of Zero was guaranteed to happen eventually.
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4527/mepurple.png)
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 15, 2009, 05:24:23 AM
if everything is essentially chaos
Good start. And we, as pattern makers, invented a way to impose patterns on the chaos.
One of these patterns was math. That doesn't mean math existed before we invented it, but once the pattern was created then it framed the Chaos in such a way that other patterns could be created.
Chapter 25 of the
Chao te Ching:
There is Something that exists,
Beyond the Illusions of Order and Disorder.
It is all things, and unknowable in full.
We only see small parts of It,
but are convinced what we see is the entire Universe.
For lack of a better name, I call It "Chaos".
At dinner parties, I claim It is everything Possible and Impossible.
When asked why not call It "god",
I point out that their head is too fucking small.
Because we create the Illusions in which we live,
we are more creative than Chaos.
Because we believe in the Illusions we create,
our heads are too fucking small.
In this way, we reflect our creations.
And Chapter 40:
Incomprehensible Totality is the nature of Chaos.
The absence of Illusion is the state of Chaos.
All spags in the world create their own Illusions,
and then spend the rest of their lives bound by them.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 15, 2009, 11:17:05 AM
Quote from: LMNO on October 14, 2009, 02:21:19 PMfor centuries without it, the appearance of Zero was guaranteed to happen eventually.
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4527/mepurple.png)
QED, bitches.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 15, 2009, 11:17:05 AM
Quote from: LMNO on October 14, 2009, 02:21:19 PMfor centuries without it, the appearance of Zero was guaranteed to happen eventually.
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4527/mepurple.png)
It's what happens when you let Belgians crossbreed with Norwegians.
Quote from: LMNO on October 15, 2009, 01:05:24 PM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 15, 2009, 05:24:23 AM
if everything is essentially chaos
Good start. And we, as pattern makers, invented a way to impose patterns on the chaos.
One of these patterns was math. That doesn't mean math existed before we invented it, but once the pattern was created then it framed the Chaos in such a way that other patterns could be created.
So that does not preclude the existence of math prior to our codification, yes? But it does mean that if it did exist prior to our discovery of it that it could have simply been apple crumb cake.
No.
Pay attention. The establishment of game rules determined that certain patterns would arise.
Those patterns would not exist without the establishment of game rules.
Quote from: LMNO on October 15, 2009, 08:48:43 PM
No.
Pay attention. The establishment of game rules determined that certain patterns would arise.
Those patterns would not exist without the establishment of game rules.
I don't get it.
:pokewithstick:
MATH DOESNT EXIST OUTSIDE OF MATH BECAUSE I SAID SO, FUCKSTICK. GODDAMN. DID YOU EAT A LOT OF PAINT CHIPS AS A CHILD?
/Roger Prime
Quote from: LMNO on October 15, 2009, 10:05:40 PM
MATH DOESNT EXIST OUTSIDE OF MATH BECAUSE I SAID SO, FUCKSTICK. GODDAMN. DID YOU EAT A LOT OF PAINT CHIPS AS A CHILD?
/Roger Prime
Doin' it rite.
Did I already state ITT that math is a religion? If not, I do so here now. If I did, oh well, at least I'm consistent.
ALL MATHEMATICIANS ARE FANATICS
You are educated evil,
and might have to kill
the evil ONE teaching
educators before you
can learn that 4 corner
days actually exist -but
all Cube Truth denied.
Dumb ass educators fear
me and hide from debate.
They are paid to teach a propaganda book - not
Cube Truth - for which
they would be fired. Evil
teachers betray students,
as ONE is a Death Value.
Cube 4x4 voids 1 & God.
USA ripe for holocaust.
Man evolves from teenager -
in cube metamorphosis
but ignores teenager to worship a male mother,
guised in woman's garb,
churchman called father.
Adult god is adult crime
upon their own children.
More holocaust deserved.
:mittens:
:lulz:
Did you just :mittens: your own post?
Quote from: LMNO on October 15, 2009, 10:05:40 PM
MATH DOESNT EXIST OUTSIDE OF MATH BECAUSE I SAID SO, FUCKSTICK. GODDAMN. DID YOU EAT A LOT OF PAINT CHIPS AS A CHILD?
/Roger Prime
Okay, I think I see your point. But if Math is a language then wouldn't that counter your argument? Because the Math would exist outside itself as an expression of an idea or concept.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 16, 2009, 04:25:38 AM
Quote from: LMNO on October 15, 2009, 10:05:40 PM
MATH DOESNT EXIST OUTSIDE OF MATH BECAUSE I SAID SO, FUCKSTICK. GODDAMN. DID YOU EAT A LOT OF PAINT CHIPS AS A CHILD?
/Roger Prime
Okay, I think I see your point. But if Math is a language then wouldn't that counter your argument? Because the Math would exist outside itself as an expression of an idea or concept.
What the fuck are you talking about? English does not exist outside of itself. No language does. Except Spanish, because all things Spanish are dangerous, even when they don't exist.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 16, 2009, 04:29:17 AM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 16, 2009, 04:25:38 AM
Quote from: LMNO on October 15, 2009, 10:05:40 PM
MATH DOESNT EXIST OUTSIDE OF MATH BECAUSE I SAID SO, FUCKSTICK. GODDAMN. DID YOU EAT A LOT OF PAINT CHIPS AS A CHILD?
/Roger Prime
Okay, I think I see your point. But if Math is a language then wouldn't that counter your argument? Because the Math would exist outside itself as an expression of an idea or concept.
What the fuck are you talking about? English does not exist outside of itself. No language does. Except Spanish, because all things Spanish are dangerous, even when they don't exist.
I can't speak Spanish, or any variant thereof. I am the most un-Mexican Mexican you could ever meet.
my point was that if Math is a language then it exists outside of itself due to its primary use of defining parameters and the world...and then as...a lang...nevermind, I retract my statement.
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 16, 2009, 04:32:21 AM
I can't speak Spanish, or any variant thereof. I am the most un-Mexican Mexican you could ever meet.
So, all the Spanish drained out of you? That sucks.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 16, 2009, 04:37:34 AM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 16, 2009, 04:32:21 AM
I can't speak Spanish, or any variant thereof. I am the most un-Mexican Mexican you could ever meet.
So, all the Spanish drained out of you? That sucks.
I took 2 years of spanish, and the best i can do is count to like thirty, say hello goodbye, thank you and ask what time it is. My Irish buddy speaks Spanish really well, its a hoot to be with us at a Mexican restaurant. waiter asks me stuff in Spanish and the Irish guy responds in Spanish while I respond in Russian (really bad russian, but they seldom know the difference).
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 16, 2009, 04:42:12 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 16, 2009, 04:37:34 AM
Quote from: Halfbaked1 on October 16, 2009, 04:32:21 AM
I can't speak Spanish, or any variant thereof. I am the most un-Mexican Mexican you could ever meet.
So, all the Spanish drained out of you? That sucks.
I took 2 years of spanish, and the best i can do is count to like thirty, say hello goodbye, thank you and ask what time it is. My Irish buddy speaks Spanish really well, its a hoot to be with us at a Mexican restaurant. waiter asks me stuff in Spanish and the Irish guy responds in Spanish while I respond in Russian (really bad russian, but they seldom know the difference).
You make Roger a sad Rain God.
I still have that Latin rythm thing going. But yeah, the language completely escapes me. To answer a movie line, I am a Mexi-can't.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 16, 2009, 01:01:08 AM
ALL MATHEMATICIANS ARE FANATICS
You are educated evil,
and might have to kill
the evil ONE teaching
educators before you
can learn that 4 corner
days actually exist -but
all Cube Truth denied.
Dumb ass educators fear
me and hide from debate.
They are paid to teach a propaganda book - not
Cube Truth - for which
they would be fired. Evil
teachers betray students,
as ONE is a Death Value.
Cube 4x4 voids 1 & God.
USA ripe for holocaust.
Man evolves from teenager -
in cube metamorphosis
but ignores teenager to worship a male mother,
guised in woman's garb,
churchman called father.
Adult god is adult crime
upon their own children.
More holocaust deserved.
:potd:
Quote from: Cramulus on October 16, 2009, 01:01:08 AM
ALL MATHEMATICIANS ARE FANATICS
You are educated evil,
and might have to kill
the evil ONE teaching
educators before you
can learn that 4 corner
days actually exist -but
all Cube Truth denied.
Dumb ass educators fear
me and hide from debate.
They are paid to teach a propaganda book - not
Cube Truth - for which
they would be fired. Evil
teachers betray students,
as ONE is a Death Value.
Cube 4x4 voids 1 & God.
USA ripe for holocaust.
Man evolves from teenager -
in cube metamorphosis
but ignores teenager to worship a male mother,
guised in woman's garb,
churchman called father.
Adult god is adult crime
upon their own children.
More holocaust deserved.
:mittens:
Exactly.