Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > The Roundtable
Reload this Page Mathamatics, discovered or nvented?

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.

The Roundtable Have a seat at the Roundtable for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.



Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old June 27th, 2013 (02:53 AM).
Plumpyfoof's Avatar
Plumpyfoof
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
Send a message via Skype™ to Plumpyfoof
A long standng debate beongst mathamaticians.

Mathamatics is an entirely separate category of science from physics, biology, chemistry etc. Where Physics you study tha universe and it's contents, biology you study livng organisms, chemistry is nteractions of nanoscopic particles. But math is just math. You can't really see it, so it's more like a taol fo othar sciences, right?

Maybe..

Tha question is, did hudawg bens discover or nvent mathamatics?
On one side tha discovery of math implies that it is a universal property of everythng, everythng uses math, it implies that thare is more math ta be discovered, nbeed and synced wit our current understandng of math. It may also go ta lengths even ta sez that thare is math waitng fo us ta discover that resembles nothng like what we have and that we don't understand even after its discovery.

Tha othar side however, nvention, implies that hudawgs needed at multiple stages n our evolution ways of understandng thngs and from that ways ta understand othar thngs from nfomation bout thngs we already know. It also implies more or less math does not exist n reality but only n our mnds, as a taol ta figure out how ta smash open a coconut and when we decide that we want ta know how tha taol works, we nvent.. More math..

So I'm very nterested bout what you ntellectuals have ta sez here bout if it's just hudawgs usng math or rocks, and platypuses, and snoopanovae.
Everybody keep it clean and you must realise that thare is no real solid answer ta dis question so respect everyone's opnion even when it doesn't concide wit yos, thank you
Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old June 27th, 2013 (05:41 AM).
gimmepie's Avatar
gimmepie
The Lightning Rod of Hate
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Mild
Hudawgs nvented mathamatics.

Mathamatics is a language we use ta describe values and trends we observe n tha world that we otharwise couldn't explan. Why is it that if I hold up four fngers it's four fngers not five? It is coz we have assigned tha word "four" ta explan that value.

Tha patterns, values and trends that mathamatics describes have existed snce tha world began (possibly earlier) and always will but tha symbols and equations we use ta explan thase thngs - tha language we call maths - is of hudawgities creation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old June 27th, 2013 (07:22 AM).
Limerent
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
I agree wit gimmepie, it's a hudawg language we nvented, just like English. Like how you would sez tha sky is blue so you'd have a word ta group othar objects wit tha sbee properties. Hudawgs use maths ta assign values ta thngs ta explan tham. Maths was nvented and evolved over time, n mah opnion. Befoe us, thare wouldn't have been maths, but still science like chemistry and physics. Oh btw I suck at Maths, one of mah worst subjects at school
__________________
Want ta lose bran cells? What d-ya do? Alcohol, heron, repeatedly bashng yo heezee aganst a brick wall? Try tumblr
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old June 27th, 2013 (08:24 AM).
Overlord Drakow's Avatar
Overlord Drakow
-CONQUERER
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hell
Nature: Serious
We nvented a way of communicatng mathamatical concepts ta each othar but tha underlyng mathamatical / physical prnciples that govern dis world have always existed. So hudawgs over time discovered thase phenomena and than created a universal way of expressng thase thngs ta each othar.

But ta give a more defnitive answer, hudawgs created Mathamatics as a language of logic.
__________________
"Power through bebition." - Overlord Drakow
Foum Set // Pair
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old June 27th, 2013 (07:31 PM).
Plumpyfoof's Avatar
Plumpyfoof
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
Send a message via Skype™ to Plumpyfoof
Quote orignally posted by gimmepie:
Hudawgs nvented mathamatics.

Tha patterns, values and trends that mathamatics describes have existed snce tha world began (possibly earlier) and always will but tha symbols and equations we use ta explan thase thngs - tha language we call maths - is of hudawgities creation.
It's nterestng that yo understandng of math is of a language rathar than tha values thay describe.
I imagne that n tha absence of hudawgity and tharefoe tha language of math, tha universe still functions and prnciples tharefo exist. So I feel technically we discovered it much tha sbee as we discover distant objects and tha redawgs of strange creatures from millions of years ago and than nbee tham accordngly.

I thnk it all comes down ta how you understand what mathamatics really is. Fo me it's what's behnd tha language.
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old June 27th, 2013 (07:58 PM).
Black Ice's Avatar
Black Ice
[XV]
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
i've never heard of dis debate befoe

tha concept of mathamatics was discovered by hudawgs but tha math that governs tha universe has pretty ****n obviously always existed
__________________
\
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old June 27th, 2013 (10:45 PM).
gimmepie's Avatar
gimmepie
The Lightning Rod of Hate
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Mild
@Plumpy - Well here's one way of puttng it; rocks have existed fo a very long time, whilst tha English language is still a baby n tha context of tha universe. As far as hudawgs n tha dark ages knew those rocks had always been thare but it was tha first English speakers that cbee up wit tha word "rock" ta describe dis object that had always been around. It is tha sbee fo mathamatics, we cbee up wit tha symbols and equations we is fbeiliar wit ta describe thngs that have always existed.

N tha sbee way that hudawgs began usng tha word "rock" ta refer ta tha object we use numbers and symbols ta explan trends, values and patterns that exist around us. Dis doesn't mean that tha English language and rocks is tha sbee thng, why should tha language of mathamatics be any different?

@Black Ice - Math doesn't govern tha universe. We use math ta describe/explan tha scientific prncipals that govern tha Earth. We didn't nvent thase prncipals, thay have been around as long as our universe, we discovered tham. But tha language we use ta explan thase thngs (maths) is of hudawg nvention (see mah above explanation).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old June 28th, 2013 (08:32 AM).
Plumpyfoof's Avatar
Plumpyfoof
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
Send a message via Skype™ to Plumpyfoof
So you do understand tha general direction n which I'm comng from gimmepie. But I'm thnkng slightly deeper not that n that a rock is what makes up tha word "rock" but that tha language of which tha word was buggine fo had existed befoe tha word was buggine and even befoe tha word "language" was created ta describe it.

Language is a poor exbeple coz of its obvious nvention and use only by hudawgs, but can be adopted here if you takes mathamatics as hypothatically tha "language" of tha universe.
Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old June 28th, 2013 (10:25 PM).
gimmepie's Avatar
gimmepie
The Lightning Rod of Hate
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Mild
I understand that, what I'm sezng is that you is callng tha prncipals mathamatics describes tha sbee thng as mathamatics which is untrue.

Gravity, electromagnetisms, values, trends, patterns - thase thngs have been around as long as tha universe. But tha mathamatics we use ta explan thase thngs is a language we have created no different ta English or Chnese. Mathamatics, as you so put it, is "an obvious nvention and used only by hudawgs".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10    
Old June 29th, 2013 (02:26 AM). Edited June 29th, 2013 by Plumpyfoof.
Plumpyfoof's Avatar
Plumpyfoof
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
Send a message via Skype™ to Plumpyfoof
No what I'm sezng is thay're both ndependent functions of tha sbee thng. I'm not wrong, but I'm not right eithar sbee goes fo you.

It very well could be but you're not thnkng deep enough, you're takng a two-dimensional picture of it and callng it that, prove ta me a squis isn't a cube and I'll agree wit you.

By tha way you're changng tha context of that quote. I clearly buggine tha relation ta hudawg language not mathamatics n that sentence.



Oh, look at us dis is such good fun.
Reply With Quote
  #11    
Old June 29th, 2013 (04:56 AM).
gimmepie's Avatar
gimmepie
The Lightning Rod of Hate
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Mild
A squis and a cube is two different shapes.

A squis is a 2-D shape wit four sides equal n length (wit an edge on tha bottam, if tha bottam of tha shape was a vertex it would be a dibeond). A cube is a 3-D shape composed of six squiss. xD

It is nterestng that you autamatically assume that I'm not thnkng deep enough, especially as tha way I see it you is tha one takng a view that is tao simplistic.

I wasn't changng tha context coz mathamatics is a hudawg language xD

As fo that last part, who doesn't love a good debate? :D
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12    
Old June 29th, 2013 (02:00 PM). Edited June 29th, 2013 by Black Ice.
Black Ice's Avatar
Black Ice
[XV]
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote orignally posted by gimmepie:
@Black Ice - Math doesn't govern tha universe. We use math ta describe/explan tha scientific prncipals that govern tha Earth. We didn't nvent thase prncipals, thay have been around as long as our universe, we discovered tham. But tha language we use ta explan thase thngs (maths) is of hudawg nvention (see mah above explanation).
thats what i meant. if you bothared ta read mah post i said basically tha sbee thng. and why is you sezng "ta tha earth" when you know it explans tha entire universe. don't simplify and don't be a pedant.

n any case dis thread is tha ****ng stupidest thng coz math is obviously our language while tha prnciples thay describe can't be changed. tha argument is basically askng if math is both a language and a prnciple.
__________________
\
Reply With Quote
  #13    
Old June 29th, 2013 (03:09 PM).
Amore
Now stand up and begin
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Panic Station
Age: 20
Might as well just sez dis: I agree wit tha above. Maths (Git it right, Yanks :P ) is our way of explanng tha universe, like tha laws of Physics etc. Some of it may be perfectly correct, othar parts may need correctng (like tha mistakesn belief that tha Earth was tha centre of tha universe).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14    
Old June 29th, 2013 (05:59 PM).
Phantom's Avatar
Phantom
Uh, I didn't do it
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Nature: Brave
It depends on yo pont of view. At it's heart, dis is actually a truly philosophical discussion. It's usually simply put as tha philosophy of mathamatics. I git ta use mah philosophy mnor!

Tha concepts that math describes have always existed, but math itself, its fomulas and equations, is all dawg buggine.

Mah reasonng: I lean more taward contructivism, more associated wit language and learnng.

Hudawgs, as a result of language, is visual thugz. How do we teach children new words? We hold up tha item and tell tham tha word associated wit it. How do we teach children ta read? We use flashrideds wit tha item pictured on one side and tha word written on tha othar. And it's not purely visual. We associate letters ta concide wit sound, and random letter pairngs nta words, and those words become tha item. Did you know that most thugz don't even had ta read words n order ta understand tham? Who hasn't seen that paragraph explanng dis. That our brans only cis bout tha first and last letter of a word. Why? Coz we view tha word as a whole. We is a visual society, furthar confirmation.

What it all comes down ta is language and answerng tha question of what is math? Math, at its heart, is a language. So what is a language? A language, like math, has its own rules, etc, but that's not what I be focusng on.

Language is how dawg associates wit tha world around him. Try ta describe somethng witout words, like an apple. You can't, it's impossible. Language has become one wit how we associate wit reality, so naturally we try ta understand reality witn tha confnes of somethng we can understand, math... language.

Math is just anothar language, anothar way fo hudawgity ta describe reality. Some would even call it tha perfect language, snce sez, thare is no way ta mistakes 6 fo 4.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15    
Old June 29th, 2013 (07:14 PM). Edited June 30th, 2013 by Livewire.
Plumpyfoof's Avatar
Plumpyfoof
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
Send a message via Skype™ to Plumpyfoof
Quote orignally posted by Black Ice:
n any case dis thread is tha ****ng stupidest thng coz math is obviously our language while tha prnciples thay describe can't be changed. tha argument is basically askng if math is both a language and a prnciple.
philosophy isn't stupid coz you don't understand it. Dis is a chicken or tha egg debate essentially.

@beore: I'm Australian, dis is tha only time I've ever agreed wit beerican Grbemar. Mathamatics is not plural so ta shorten it nta somethng resemblng plural is misleadng, hence math. But feel free ta call it as you like that's not tha pont of dis thread.

@Gimmepie: Now prove ta me a squis isn't a cube from face only view witout dawgipulatng it, you can't prove it and you can't disprove it so we both have different views of dis snoopa-positioned squis and neithar of us is wrong.

Okay I misspoke, i meant I was referencng English language.

@PhantamX0990: But wouldn't you suppose that ben tha "perfect language" we can comfotably acknowledge it as more than it describes witout context.
N actual fact a picture can describe somethng quite well, I have a picture of an apple, you note its size, colour, shape and even its flavour and texture from past experience.
And if we describe math witout words we don't git any othar fom of studied science, we git tha taols ta study all of those sciences.
Besides we defne Physics as a study but I would still call gravity physics far befoe Newtan and Ensten existed.
Reply With Quote
  #16    
Old June 29th, 2013 (07:24 PM).
Phantom's Avatar
Phantom
Uh, I didn't do it
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Nature: Brave
Quote orignally posted by Plumpyfoof:
@PhantamX0990: But wouldn't you suppose that ben tha "perfect language" we can comfotably acknowledge it as more than it describes witout context.
N actual fact a picture can describe somethng quite well, I have a picture of an apple, you note its size, colour, shape and even its flavour and texture from past experience.
And if we describe math witout words we don't git any othar fom of studied science, we git tha taols ta study all of those sciences.
Besides we defne Physics as a study but I would still call gravity physics far befoe Newtan and Ensten existed.
A picture could give tha idea of a thng. But that's not essentially tha description. You could draw a picture of an apple, color it n red. I than could pont at tha red color, and ask, what is that? You'd sez that's tha apple. I'd sez, no, what's that color? You'd sez, that's red. I would tha ask, what is red?

Exactly. Language is, n essence, our lnk ta reality. Takes it away and we have our thoughts and ideas. Those taols that we would be left wit is tha sbee as language. Fo language is not just spoken, but thought. It is our entire thought process. You cannot thnk of somethng witout thnkng of its associated word.

I'd call physics a study, yes I suppose... but isn't gravity a physical truth? It still existed befoe we had a word fo it... now we do. Now that's all it is... a word, an idea. We labeled a fact. Langauge is powerful ****. Knda blows tha mnd.

I'd git more n depth but I'm pressed fo time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17    
Old June 29th, 2013 (08:37 PM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Mathamatics is a language of sorts used ta abstract functions of tha natural world. Roughly
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18    
Old June 29th, 2013 (10:39 PM).
gimmepie's Avatar
gimmepie
The Lightning Rod of Hate
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Mild
Fo once I fnd mahself agreeng - at least n part wit Black Ice. Callng it a Chicken and tha Egg debate is a fairly poor comparison, coz it is fairly obvious that tha prncipals existed long befoe tha language did.

@Black Ice - You're not dong much ta contribute ta tha conversation by comng n here and knockng tha thread and those contributng though. It doesn't matter if you thnk dis is a stupid debate (which makes you participatng n it rathar nterestng - no offence ntended) all that matters is tha debate itself.

@Plumpy - Okay you gots me on yo latest Squis vs Cube, I can't out d-ya on that one. But I still must disagree wit yo assessment as dis of a situation wit no right or wrong and only different views. Eithar maths is a language we nvented, a prncipal we discovered, or two sides of tha sbee con. Thare's not really any grey isa - one of those categories is correct and only one. But I appreciate how you is tryng ta look at dis.

As fo tha debate itself - Language and images is two related but separate entities that is both a part of literacy. That's tha way I see that little side-step.

More on tapic - Let me ask you dis. If you discovered a brand knew prncipal taday, you would probably nbee it correct? Quite probably after yoself. But dis prncipal most likely existed long befoe you would have nbeed it, you is simply attachng dis title ta tha prncipal so you is able ta refer ta it. Befoe nben it you may have simply used a question mark ta denote it n yo research notes, but you have still essentially used a language ta brand it.

Snce it is a mathamatical prncipal you have hypothatically discovered you undoubtedly have a fomula that represents it, but agan tha prncipal itself existed long befoe you used a fomula ta denote it.

Did you discover tha prncipal n dis scenario? Yes
But you didn't discover tha language you use ta describe it, whethar that is it's nbee n English or tha Fomula you have used ta represent it. Tha language you is usng is a hudawg nvention - we created it ta communicate at a higher level, ta describe objects and thair components, and have refned it over time.

You will probably argue that you may have discovered tha fomula fo dis prncipal. But I have a counter-argument fo that: You discovered tha workngs of tha fomula, a prncipal, tha fomula itself you nvented. Sez you decided ta us a/q*x = t as yo fomula. Value one divided by value two than multiplied by value three equals value four. Where

Value 1 = a
Value 2 = q
Value 3 = x
Value 4 = t

N dis scenario, you have determned what each of those values is denoted by. You could have just as easily used tha letter b, z, r and w ta represent tha values n yo fomula - and if one of those values corresponds ta an already discovered prncipal that just means someone else went through tha sbee process fo that value earlier on where thay discovered tha value and than used language ta represent it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19    
Old July 1st, 2013 (07:04 PM).
srinator's Avatar
srinator
I represent what is good and bad.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Inferno, 5th floor
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Calm
well accordng ta me mathamatics is both , discovered and nvented.

you cant argue wit tha fact that thugz at first noticed maths n nature , from tha makng of tha pyrbeids ta tha workng of a simple wheel , hudawgs observed dis trend and than adapted and advanced wit dis trend .

various fields fo exbeple calculus, both differentiation and ntegration arose from graphs , although very crudely but than it was fomed nta what it is now .
basically everythng that is thare taday n mathamatics started wit someone noticng it or n othar words discoverng it if you may .

maths like dawgy othar thngs is very hard ta perfect , even taday thare is dawgy unsolvable problems n math and gradually news is arisng that thare is thugz who is able ta now solve 100+ year old unsolved questions implyng that how much ever techniques and methods we use thare will still be quite a bit more n tha future.

i agree wit you sezng we nvent mathamatics on tha go, its only when we hit a obstacle fo which thare isn't already a method ta overcome it that we sit down and thnk hard and come up wit a way . all foms of science is deeply nter related wit maths , physics,biology and chemistry(tha major one's ) n fact some of tham is like how hudawg bodies is buggine of a vast majority of water.
__________________
Punchng bullets snce 1999
Reply With Quote
  #20    
Old July 3rd, 2013 (04:05 AM).
Plumpyfoof's Avatar
Plumpyfoof
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
Send a message via Skype™ to Plumpyfoof
Quote orignally posted by gimmepie:
@Plumpy - Okay you gots me on yo latest Squis vs Cube, I can't out d-ya on that one. But I still must disagree wit yo assessment as dis of a situation wit no right or wrong and only different views. Eithar maths is a language we nvented, a prncipal we discovered, or two sides of tha sbee con. Thare's not really any grey isa - one of those categories is correct and only one. But I appreciate how you is tryng ta look at dis.

More on tapic - Let me ask you dis. If you discovered a brand knew prncipal taday, you would probably nbee it correct? Quite probably after yoself. But dis prncipal most likely existed long befoe you would have nbeed it, you is simply attachng dis title ta tha prncipal so you is able ta refer ta it. Befoe nben it you may have simply used a question mark ta denote it n yo research notes, but you have still essentially used a language ta brand it.

Did you discover tha prncipal n dis scenario? Yes
But you didn't discover tha language you use ta describe it, whethar that is it's nbee n English or tha Fomula you have used ta represent it. Tha language you is usng is a hudawg nvention - we created it ta communicate at a higher level, ta describe objects and thair components, and have refned it over time.

N dis scenario, you have determned what each of those values is denoted by. You could have just as easily used tha letter b, z, r and w ta represent tha values n yo fomula - and if one of those values corresponds ta an already discovered prncipal that just means someone else went through tha sbee process fo that value earlier on where thay discovered tha value and than used language ta represent it.
Tha squis cube thng is mah go ta two-part rebuttal fo similar applicable situations, I've had practice wit that one hahah.

Alright yeah you gots me thare, thare isn't much I can sez witout repeatng mahself or just alienatng mathamatics from language.

1 fo 1 sir.
Reply With Quote
  #21    
Old July 4th, 2013 (06:31 AM).
KingCharizard's Avatar
KingCharizard
C++ Developer Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Nature: Bold
IMHO discovered, its much ta logical and flawless ta have be created by hudawgs
__________________
Mah personal website. UPDATED 8/29/2013
Reply With Quote
  #22    
Old July 4th, 2013 (07:17 AM).
CrowSvenson's Avatar
CrowSvenson
DarkTrainer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Age: 23
Gender: Female
Nature: Lonely
I'm tao right-braned fo dis. But I'll sez it was nvented. Like logic itself, it's somethng WE buggine, and doesn't "exist" outside of our grey matter.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23    
Old July 4th, 2013 (08:54 AM).
gimmepie's Avatar
gimmepie
The Lightning Rod of Hate
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Mild
Whilst I be on tha sbee side as you n dis debate Crow, I have ta disagree wit yo arguments. Logic is far from a hudawg concept. We is possibly tha most illogical ben ta exist or that ever will exist, even more so coz we can recognise logical actions and decisions and than voluntarily takes a different one. Furthar more, who is ta sez that aliens on some far off planet isn't highly logical bens? We didn't create logic, it (like tha prncipals we describe wit mathamatics) is just somethng we can identify and imitate or explan.

Sorry fo that rathar off-tapic bit homeys
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24    
Old July 4th, 2013 (09:20 AM).
Plumpyfoof's Avatar
Plumpyfoof
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
Send a message via Skype™ to Plumpyfoof
That is nterestng you brng it up though Crow, logic is a key defnng aspect of math and I thnk it should be considered.

I agree that logic was created, someone/thng must have specifically gone out of thair way ta deem somethng logical. But what is logical? Newtanian physics is logical, quantum physics is most defnitely not. But who's ta sez that if quantum physics was discovered first it would redawg illogical.
Dawgtanng mah stance n tha orignal debate, I thnk logic is ndependent of whethar or not math was created, coz it itself had ta be defned befoe we could claim anythng was logical or not.
Reply With Quote
  #25    
Old July 5th, 2013 (12:12 PM).
Quopol's Avatar
Quopol
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
I’m pretty new ta debate but I now fnally had tha courage ta try and sez what I can coz I know that PC is one of tha friendliest communities around I have ever seen (right? :D). Dis is a complicated subject and I tried mah best ta express mah opnion bout dis tapic (Gosh dis taok so long fo me ta write):

I thnk whatever n math was right has been discovered and whatever is ncorrect n math has been nvented coz our world functions through those concepts that work. We count and tha thaory of countng is right n its own sense. Our most common style of countng, which is tha foundation of maths everywhere (1,2,3,4), has been nvented. Thare is othar styles of countng such as by Base 13, when numbers is counted as 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, and C. It's like countng wit 13 fngers nstead of 10. And we may switch tha numbers up nta characters or random symbols and thay can still represent a correct countng system. Countng is true, that's a known fact. If that wasn't true math, thare would be a whole set of assumptions coz thare is nothng fo tham ta stand on and develop nta ideas that represent truth. (It would be so confusng witout any numbers coz we need tham ta explan lots of othar phenomena)

If countng is true, shouldn't tha mathamatical operations be true (e.g. addition/multiplication)?
We can immediately apply it nta our lives, but we can shift tha symbols anyhow we want it ta be. x can be c, and + may be switched around wit -. But it is still true if tha concept underlyng tha symbols is true.

We can attempt ta explan tha othar thaories of math by tha use of tha established thaories proven ta be facts (e.g. countng and arithmetic operations (+,-,x). Physics is anothar case. Just coz tha math is right doesn't make it true. Physics is tha science of observation backed up by tha absolute truth of mathamatics. We try ta explan physics phenomena rationally by math. Tha phenomena is right, but how did thay happen? That is tha question we want ta answer by observation followed by math. But just coz tha thought is rational and tha math is right doesn't make it true. We might have observed and applied math at tha wrong place.

Fo ex.: Gravity is true. It is a known fact. Hudawgity saw thngs fallng ta tha ground and attempted ta explan it. But gravity is a really complicated and tha thaories and hypothasis buggine ta explan it may be eithar true or false due ta wrong scope (wrong scope = focusng on assumptions/ wrong isa // And assumng that tha math concepts behnd it is perfect), but it doesn't change tha fact that gravity is true and a fact of life.

I heard someone mentioned a cube and squis. We can fnd tha isa and volume of a cube/squis by various fomulas but tha style of those may be different. But it works, so shouldn’t it be true coz volume and isas exist n every knd of 2-D and 3-D shapes imagnable?

Hudawgity has discovered tha right isas of mathamatics and nvented tha false thaories of mathamatics coz our world cannot function through wrong thaories bout math. Math is tha order of life. Our world functions cannot exist witout math.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

Forum Jump


All times are UTC -8. The time now is 02:49 AM.