The nature of mathematics.

[Fletcher`]

Creaphis said:

I'm confused. Why wasn't that funny?

Because you don't like Tom Lehrer (no that guy isn't him. but it is his voice)

[Doom Marine]

rf` said:

YouTube Video

Math, like many other languages, have their share of incoherent users.

[EarthQuake]

GreyGhost said:

Birds fail the second leg because they can't count.

Actually, some birds can count. Crows are one example.

[myk]

EarthQuake said:
Crows are one example.

Yeah, but Crowes can't.

[Johnny]

exp(x) said:

Math was invented, and if you don't agree with me, then fuck you.

What if for example Newton had not have come up with calculus? Eventually someone else surely would have. Maybe notation would have been different, but its mathematical structure would be identical. Thus calculus is like an undiscovered country waiting for the explorer to come across it, in the case the explorer happened to be Newton.

[exp(x)]

Johnny said:

What if for example Newton had not have come up with calculus? Eventually someone else surely would have. Maybe notation would have been different, but its mathematical structure would be identical. Thus calculus is like an undiscovered country waiting for the explorer to come across it, in the case the explorer happened to be Newton.

First, fuck you. Second, of course calculus' structure would have been the same if someone else (Leibniz) had "discovered" it; in order for it to be consistent with the set of logical axioms (which were invented) at the heart of mathematics, it can only exist one way.

[Johnny]

<3

[Kyka]

Just a quick question.

I seem to remember that someone back in the forties or fifties or something (possibly Turing? I can't remember and can't be bothered going and researching it) came up with sets of mathematical paradigms that made absolutely no sense when set alongside anything else, but were wholly consistent and worked perfectly within their own internal logic.

So would this lend itself to the line of discussion that maths is a subset of reality? At the least you could argue that reality must be "wide" enough to even allow someone's mind to think up these alternate mathematical logics.

[Creaphis]

Reality is certainly "wide enough" to hold multiple mathematical logics, as there is no one particular logic that is fundamentally correct - even our most common, most useful mathematical system is technically an approximation of how the universe seems to work. However, different logical systems definitely have different levels of usefulness, depending on how closely they model our reality, which is why there is one mathematical system which everyone uses, relegating all other logical systems to their roles as philosophical curiosities.

[999cop]

Math is like philosophy, if there's no human existence, there's no point in thinking about it coz' no one would.

[ducon]

I don't know what is maths, but I do maths.

[Alboroto]

Math IS a perfect language, it's clear (if you understand its "grammar"), it's easily tranlated to other languages (music fot example) and it can be used without distortion, since all it's elements are clear (to those who clearly dominate the language).

was it invented or discovered. Just like any other language, yes and no.

The wiring needed to develope a language comes installed in brain 1.0, but the means to interprete it are given by the interaction with one's enviroment. My point is, that math was already there, but we couldn't reach it until a translation mean was invented.

[magicsofa]

I don't understand how math can be the perfect language. It only conveys one thing - quantities and operations. A language is not supposed to be so restricted. The purpose of language is to communicate with other people. Math lets you tell people certain things, but how are you going to convey that you need food, or that you are a worthy mate, or that you're about to kill someone?

[GreyGhost]

The last one's straightforward enough - 2-1=1

[Lüt]

Or similarly, 4-4=8 :o