>>79 there are no physical constraints
But IRL there always physical constraints, so you cant talk about "for every x".
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-04 6:25
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.
>>83
The problem with morons is: a moron uses a metaphor to describe some concept, like mathematicians. The metaphor isn't the thing he describes. But being a moron 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.
In other words: you just made this shit up and never ever bothered to check if the stuff you described actually happens. Like, that there's a lot of mathematicians out there who systematically misapply some derived properties to real-world objects.
The fact that the fallacy you described turned out to so deliciously self-referential is funny as hell.
>>85
>Like, that there's a lot of mathematicians out there who systematically misapply some derived properties to real-world objects.
Can you show us "infinitesimal", math people use every day to make conclusions bout empirical world?
Name:
speech of typical math-faggot2011-02-04 7:12
The fear of infinity is a form of myopia that destroys the possibility of seeing the actual infinite, even though it in its highest form has created and sustains us, and in its secondary transfinite forms occurs all around us and even inhabits our minds. -- Georg Cantor
I have never proceeded from any Genus supremum of the actual infinite. Quite the contrary, I have rigorously proved that there is absolutely no Genus supremum of the actual infinite. What surpasses all that is finite and transfinite is no Genus; it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding. This is the Actus Purissimus, which by many is called God. -- Georg Cantor
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-04 7:23
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.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-04 7:24
You will become famous if you please famous people -- and all famous mathematicians like axiomatic set theory. -- Paul Lorenzen, German philosopher and mathematician, who worked in game theory, constructive logic, constructive type theory and constructive analysis.
>>86
I don't think so, bro. A model is a custom-made represention of a given subject in a certain medium. A metaphor is an existing subject used to ilustrate aspects or workings of another subject by means of substitution or implicit comparison.
>>96
``Existing'' as in self-standing, independently of what it is substituting for. A model, on the other hand, is nothing but an ``image'' of something else.
>>82
Ok, let me try to explain this to you. If I prove a generalized solution independent of physical restrictions, I can then take this rule and apply it to each instance of the problem and tailor it to specific physical constraints. Without the generalized rule, I end up having to do extraneous work throughout each instance. The abstraction is a valuable tool.
I am really starting to get irritated about all this. Why do so many of you hold these unconventional views? What are you all trying to accomplish here? What is the goal of this argument? Are you just voicing your frustration with mathematics, or is it something else?
>>112 Don't waste your time on trolls/idiots.
You mean: don't waste your time on /prog/, there's nothing interesting to see here anymore. I don't even know why I still read it.
OP has already made like 10 threads and he always fills them with out-of-context quotes. He is incapable of understanding abstract concepts and constructs and can't separate abstract things from reality, that is, he is incapable in using concepts as concepts and instead he will only accept a concept if it can exist in physical reality. (Example of concepts could be all natural numbers or real numbers - reality can only contain limited information, thus there will be a biggest number it can represent, but OP won't understand the concept of that number if it cannot be represented in reality; and real numbers don't exist at all in reality, but are very useful in modeling things with infinitely small granularity without having to get drowned in practical details of the real world, while still obtaining usable results, within certain acceptable and estimatable errors).
I've already debated with this troll (IHBT) in a few of his threads from a few months ago and concluded that it's pointless to discuss it any further.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 8:50
>>101
Mathematics is all about "semantic nuances just for the sake of misusing terminology."
>>110
>generalized solution independent of physical restrictions
So your solution is some all encompasing god-like entity, that has no physical form? Then how do you know, it applies our humble physical? So jewish! So religious!
>he will only accept a concept if it can exist in physical reality
Because this is right approach: if you cant see it and touch it, it doesnt exist. Can you see your jewish "infinite set"?
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 8:52
>>114
>pointless to discuss
Because you've nothing, but ad-hominems and arguments to authority, so for you any discussion would be pointless.
>>115,116 dat quoting Oh you.
However, I think you're rather Jewish yourself, OP. You seem to be unable to realize that there are other religions and spiritual beliefs than Judaism. I'd say that mathematics is more akin to Shintoism.