>>10 there is plenty of mathematic philosophy. Pythagoras for instance was a very famous mathematician/philosopher/scientist who completely unifies numbers and nature.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-29 1:56 ID:+vkedDqd
>>8
Math isn't "expanding" into computational fields, it created them.
Except that there's no real evidence of someone called "Pythagoras" existing, just an ancient, outdated group of people called "Pythagoreans" who believed in some fucked up shit.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-29 15:21 ID:Iccc4FKe
>>23 you don't happen to know, ermm, mathematics, do you?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-29 15:23 ID:Iccc4FKe
And regardless of his existence the philosophy still stands. There isn't much evidence of socrates' existence either (his story is told by plato, who claims to have been his apprentice), but this doesn't at all effect the existence of "his" philosophy.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-29 15:24 ID:Iccc4FKe
(same person btw)
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-29 15:46 ID:pf3UsEgC
Actually, I'd say math is the purest science. All the other scientific fields have to rely heavily on models more than certainties/exactness. (That's not a slam against any sciences, it's just reality.)
Nah, philosophy is the purest science. Hell, philosophers aren't even SURE if they exist. Isn't that enough for you?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-29 21:20 ID:3hREuvZO
>>24
I'm not up to scratch on my history, but I've got a feeling that "Pythagoras' Theorem" predates the existence of the Pythagoreans or even the supposed "Pythagoras".
>>25
"his" philosophy, being of sound mathematical nature I presume, what with resurrection and being against democracy and so forth.
>>28
Be that as it may, mathematicians don't even CARE if they exist. Isn't that enough for you?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-29 21:22 ID:+XI9a4M5
triangles didnt even exist until 20 B.C.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-29 22:38 ID:+vkedDqd
>>13
Work on your reading comprehension. I didn't say anything like that. >>8 makes about as much sense as saying "physics is expanding into string theory", or "biology is expanding into evolution." It implies that there was some sort of study of computation that didn't involve math, and now math is expanding INTO it. If you meant to say that these subfields of math are themselves expanding, I agree. However, that is not what you said.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-29 23:23 ID:kU/vpi27
>>29
Be that as it may, mathematicians don't even CARE if they exist. Isn't that enough for you?
Yeah, it is.
Name:
4tran2007-08-29 23:27 ID:31arHB7g
>>21
No, counting things is combinatorics. Accounting is intentionally failing to count things or counting non existent things in an effort to increase a company's profit margins.
I'm under the impression that logic is a subset of mathematics, rather than the other way around.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-30 2:45 ID:waIZo6t8
>>32
Assuming you're >>13, you really need to learn English before you post here. Your responses are nonsensical and seemingly unrelated to anything that has been said. gb2/lang/.
If you're not >>13, then you're just a garden variety idiot.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-30 5:27 ID:PblJZQxw
OMG, i thought on 4Chan there would be more intelligent nerds, but i failed.
Math is not really science however it is of course cross-linked with every thinkable kind of things even in our daily life!
Yes they are. Much of philosophy treats existence as the only fact that you can stand on to come to any conclusion. While no one might be able to speculate as to anything else about existence, contemplating that we DO exist is possibly the only real fact that we have.
"I think, therefore I am." - Rene Descartes
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-30 17:21 ID:d/lkX0ir
>>38
" treats existence as the only fact that you can stand on to come to any conclusion"
so it's an axiom, and it's an axiom because it can't be verified from something else.
also, descartes's quote is a non-sequitur, and he knew it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-30 17:54 ID:OmgSSPOu
Existence is verified by existing. Any phenomenon happening at all verifies existence at least at the simplest and least implicative form. Therefore, calling it non sequitur is bollocks, tbh.