>>116
I've already presented my arguments. You refuse to make the difference between concepts and reality. You think a concept is invalid if it cannot be implemented in physical reality.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 9:05
>>120 I'd say that mathematics is more akin to Shintoism.
Mathematics is a monotheistic religion, because its only god is great all encompassing Infinity. If you remove Infinity, you will've no mathematics, maybe programming or engineering, but not math. But monotheistic god theory was invented by jews. Set Theory was also invented by jews. So it is valid, to call these theories jewish.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 9:08
>>121
>You think a concept is invalid if it cannot be implemented in physical reality.
I think concepts're useless, if not supported by your subjective reality. Some if you see this "infinity" or hear voices in your head, then for you it exists. Maybe I'm just blind of deaf, but I never seen your God, nor heard its voice.
>>110 Why do so many of you hold these unconventional views?
It's only one person who does, and he is a mongoloid untermensch from Russian imageboards, whose alcoholic Russian slut mother had unprotected sex with a Jew, which produced this sorry creature who is considered Jewish by everyone except Jews and so envies and hates the Chosen People with all passion his little black godless heart can muster.
He comes here because nobody on those imageboards pays any attention to him anymore. I want to emphasize that: the imageboard contingent sees him trolling and knows better than to respond.
I think you should feel kinda bad about yourself, IHBMT.
In this day and age, there is no excuse for brushing off math. It’s tough if you’re bad at it, especially since faking competency is a lot harder in math than in the humanities. Nevertheless, brushing it off and not caring is not an acceptable defense mechanism. There’s a part of me that really wants, next time I hear someone say “I was always bad at math” to respond with “Well, I guess you’re just stupid.” It’s obviously not the correct response, but at least it’d move the average in the right direction.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 19:17
It’s really sad that in a technical age, where more and more people are engineers, scientists and computer programmers, we don’t have this deep societal appreciation for math and science. The same thing that makes people freely admit their math skills also affects college curricula. Look at the required curricula at most liberal arts colleges, which proudly proclaim the value of the “well-rounded” education that they give. There are very few math/science/computer/engineering classes, and extremely few math classes in particular. What requirements there are can always be filled by worthless classes. Then look at the curricula for technical, math/science-focused schools. They always have a substantial humanities requirement, and a totally unscientific survey of people I know has found that there tend to be few joke courses to fill those requirements, and that most students don’t take them. Which schools really give the most well-rounded education?
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 19:59
If a concept has no basis in reality (like infinity), it is still of great use to us if it can bring us to solutions that do have a basis in reality.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 20:12
>>129
Anything dervived from nonsense is still nonsense.
Well, I suppose it is the other way around. Nature existed b4 we made the math. & we may even change it. Suppose tomorrow we learn we're 99% black matter? WORSE than Hawking predicts? "What Then, motherfucker?" I want to hear him say that (-:<
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 22:58
So, /g is retarded You all are stuck with me until I find that pic.
Math is just a language for describing consistent, non-contradictory structures.
Our universe is very likely one such structure and will obviously obey some geometry and logic.
What this particular troll appears to be claiming is that real numbers and infinity (whatever he means by that, infinities need to be defined to mean anything) cannot exist in reality. I tend to prefer the finite digital world view myself, as it avoids all kinds of weird stuff that would be possible otherwise, and QM and GR does hint at reality possibly being like that, however I'm always ready to be surprised by nature.
Since it's possible to construct limited forms of turing machines in this world, general branches of math also apply.
What the troll refuses to do is consider sets like the natural numbers which have infinite values. Such sets are of theoretical value and can help simplify a lot of things without actually breaking anything, instead the troll prefers to only think of limited sets of numbers, as required in practice. This will prevent him from creating more advanced abstractions and overall limit him.
For all the ad-hominem attacks, he should instead try to do some constructive criticism if he so hates math, such as defining his own systems and publishing them so we can look at them and compare them with modern math.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:15
O Rly?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:21
>>140
and if knowing about Fractals makes me an oldfag, so be it. They are badass.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:37
>>146
Sorry, but your mandelbrot is as useless as the jew, who concieved it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:37
Mandelbrot was born in Warsaw into a Jewish family from Lithuania.
Fractals - a jewish pseudoscience, consisting of abstraction and casuistry.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:39
>>144
If a `religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one. -- John D. Barrow, Between Inner Space and Outer Space, Oxford University Press, 1999, p 88.
Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element of reason which may be present. [Atheism], for example, would be a religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the unique position of being the only branch of theology possessing a rigorous demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified. -- H. Eves, Mathematical Circles, Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt, 1969.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:41
>>144 Since it's possible to construct limited forms of turing machines in this world, general branches of math also apply.
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. -- Nikola Tesla
The problem with math is: mathematician uses a mathematical metaphor to describe some concept. The metaphor isn't the thing he describes. But math allows one to take the metaphor, and run with it, making arguments that are built entirely on metaphor, but which bear no relation to the real underlying concept. And he believes that whatever conclusions he draws from the metaphor must, therefore, apply to the original concept.
There are two main problems with mathematics:
* The mathematical abstraction may not be suitable with respect to all real-world applications that are based on it. There are occasions where people use their real-world knowledge but run into an error because the abstraction is not applicable. Such cases can pose serious problems to users because the source of the error is not obvious to them. Some authors even discourage the use of abstractions for this reason.
* The abstraction may be too remote or abstract, so that users have to invest too much effort into translating the abstraction into their world. In this case, the abstraction does not help users. Instead, it forms an obstacle to them.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:48
>>144 Such sets are of jewish value...
That is why!
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:54
>>144 For all the ad-hominem attacks, he should instead try to do some constructive criticism if he so hates math, such as defining his own systems and publishing them so we can look at them and compare them with modern math.
I'm not a crank to attempt inventing personal mathematics, programing an operating system or constructing a nucklear bomb in garage. Such things require years of works, good financing and workforce.
Scheme or Haskell, good sirs? For practical application? Learning functional programming?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:00
>>154
Haskell is just seems cumbersome. Now, you could say the same thing about lisp/scheme; but once you get going with lisp/emacs you really start to flow and the abstract syntax tree is a lot easier to follow.
Haskell just seems like something for the university, something for the math department. I dont know how these guys are going to start banging out web applications with this.
http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/getting-started.html
>It is sometimes better to leave at least some parentheses in place, even when Haskell allows us to omit them. Complex expressions that rely completely on operator precedence are notorious sources of bugs. A compiler and a human can easily end up with different notions of what even a short, parenthesis-free expression is supposed to do. There is no need to remember all of the precedence and associativity rules numbers: it is simpler to add parentheses if you are unsure.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:03
Haskellers of all levels are sometimes frustrated by not being able to understand the clever code produced by more advanced Haskellers. They see that the suggested solutions work, but either they can't see how, or they wouldn't have been able to come up with that kind of solution themselves.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:22
Obtaining benefit from the type system involves attention on the part of the programmer and willingness to make good use of the facilities provided by the language. A complex program that encodes all its data structures as lists will not get much help from the compiler. -- Benjamin C. Pierce
Type systems offer numerous "tricks" for encoding information. -- Benjamin C. Pierce
Type systems support the programming process by enforcing disciplined programming. -- Benjamin C. Pierce
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:31
So which one is it?
Scheme or Haskell?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:35
>>159
And I posted the first question (Haskell or Scheme) not to debate which one is the better language. You can take the R5RS standard/Racket or the Haskell Prime standard and pump out something nice. I'm talking about how intuitive each one is. Because I like Scheme/Racket (I personally prefer the Racket dialect of Scheme because it supports modules and has much more libraries) because its intuitive. You think of a solution and the answer just comes to you. Haskell's type system, although wonderfully thought out, seems to force thinking into an overly linear direction while still ending up with having the same wonderfully creative tools as Racket. So what do? I want to learn Haskell to learn Math but I already know Racket and... I'm sorry for quoting a fanatical Mac, jewish murderer of anuses, but it just works.