Blocked 🚫

Comments

• JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Relevant xkcd as always

  Image xkcd.com/435/

  source

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It is legitimately cool when a bunch of mathematicians get together in a room and say “Look at all the cool shapes and patterns we made,” then show it to a physicist who goes all frantic and starts shouting “OMG! I understand how stuff works!”

    source
  • Soleos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Gotta love how the more “Applied” a field is, the more “Impure” it is.

    source
• lowleveldata@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The number of people having jobs in this picture is record low

  source

  • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    There’s a real gravity to that statement and it definitely adds up.

    source
  • eldain@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Because they are students? Both are high demand professions, I don’t get it.

    source

    • sir_pronoun@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I guess that the commentor meant that those kinds of thoughts don’t get you jobs, and doesn’t know how easy it is to get a job with a degree in either of those fields. Same for the upvoters.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Zwiebel@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Calling a made up construct “the absolute truth” is hilarious

  source

  • MBM@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The way I see it, axioms and notation are made up but everything that follows is absolute truth

    source

    • luciole@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I’d say if your axioms don’t hold you would go far in your quest for truth.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Axioms can be demonstrated. They don’t have to be purely theoretical.

      Mass and Energy are axiomatic to the study of physics, for instance. The periodic table is axiomatic to understanding chemistry. You can establish something as self-evident that’s also demonstrably true.

      One could argue that mathematics is less a physical thing than a language to describe a thing. But once you have that shared language, you can factually guarantee certain fundamental ideas. The idea of an empty set is demonstrable, for instance. You can even demonstrate the idea of infinity, assuming you’re not existing in a closed system.

      You can posit axioms that don’t fit reality, too. And you can build up features of this hypothetical space that diverge from our own. But then you can demonstrate why those axioms can’t apply to this space and agree as such with whomever you’re trying to convey ideas.

      When we talk about “absolute truth”, we’re talking about a point of universal rational consensus. Mathematics is a language that helps us extend subjective observation into objective conclusion. That’s what makes it a useful tool in scientific inquiry.

      source
  • BackOnMyBS@lemmy.autism.place ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The test to know if anything is an absolute truth is if it is called an absolute truth. If it is called an absolute truth, then it isn’t an absolute truth. If it isn’t called an absolute truth, then it isn’t an absolute truth. Absolute truths don’t exist. If someone tells you something is an absolute truth, stop listening to them.

    source

    • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You could say it’s an absolute truth that absolute truths do not exist.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • IndiBrony@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      What about my Sith friend?

      source
  • samus12345@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    They’re made up constructs that reflect the absolute truth when applied correctly (from his perspective).

    source
  • Phoenix3875@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Well, it depends on your definition of truth and it could be the absolute truth by definition. A theorem is absolutely true in the same way that “a bachelor is an unmarried man” is categorically true.

    source

    • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      “This line on the map is perpendicular to this other line on the map” is not a statement about the territory.

      source
  • i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I was about to say “incompleteness theorem”!

    source

    • Srh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That just means we can’t know everything about the system. Not that it is not true.

      source
    • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That’s computer science alongside with Church/Turing. Maths could have tried to claim it but they doubled down on formalism so they don’t deserve it.

      That said though incompleteness follows from nothing but logical implication itself so it’s more fundamental than physics (try to imagine a physics without cause and effect) and philosophy (find me a philosopher who wasn’t asleep during their logic lectures).

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Srh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Math ain’t made up. Math is discovered.

    source

    • WldFyre@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I don’t think that’s a settled debate IIRC

      source
• Spacehooks@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Math is a tool!

  source

  • IndiBrony@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Your a tool!

    ❤️

    source

    • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      …

      you’re*

      (I’m sorry T_T)

      source
    • Spacehooks@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Only on my dad’s side!

      source
  • propter_hog@hexbear.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Visible disgust

    Maynard

    source

    • turtlepower@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Tool is a math?

      source
  • Carrolade@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Specifically, a language. It moves information from one place to another. It can reveal new information too, but that’s more of a useful side effect imo.

    source

    • Spacehooks@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I do see where you’re going but I would consider language a tool for communication.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • luciole@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Therefore mathematicians are tools? QED or whatever

    source

    • Spacehooks@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      They are tool specialist by career. As for themselves, that is an individual assessment.

      source
• azi@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Image You guys believe in objective reality?

  source

  • UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Not as something we have access to but yeah!

    source
• Steamymoomilk@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Computer science, we you both of your tools to solve problems. And make an electronic canary aka AI

  source

  • Shou@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The progams we use at work, are downright magical. Yo computer dude, how can a computer be inconsistent?

    source

    • Steamymoomilk@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      UHHHHHHH the little men inside take a coffee break :D *Windows 95 blue BSOD ensues *

      source
• flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  If someone needs another existental crisis here’s a prompt:

  • Is math universal or is it a system of thought invented by humans and it only makes sense to us?

  source

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    All I know is that 1 = 0.9999…

    source

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      1 = 9/9, yeah

      source
    • rovingnothing29@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Then how can it be Truth at all?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • CodexArcanum@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Models. Humans hold models of the world in their minds, math helps you understand and create more complex and consistent models. You always exist in a simulation of your own construction to make sense of the universe.

    My feeling is that no model can ever fully capture a complete description of reality, the information isn’t compressible to such a degree that approximations or abstractions can be lossless.

    Most of what we consider to be invention is merely combinatoric novelty.

    source
  • Kwiila@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    How we express math is particular to us, though it’d be commonly decipherable. Math is more and more globally standardized as more of it gets globally acknowledged as “the most useful” way to do math. E.g. place holder 0 vs Roman Numerals. Ratios are conceptually universal to any species that bothers measuring. Quantification maybe less so. Especially if their comprehension of advanced sciences/engineering is somehow intuitive instead of formally calculated. // If a space faring species has a concept of proportions/ratios, but not individual identity of numbers, presenting Meters as a portion of the speed of light might be a universal way discern the rest of our math. Water as Liters might be more accessible, depending on how they think of water. // Sets and Axioms are purely conceptually representative and so viable as long as they’re capable of symbolic abstraction at all.

    source
  • pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Universal. How else would you calculate or solve equations?

    source

    • galoisghost@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Like our ancestors with goat entrails and a magic talking stick.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Artyom@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Good thing physicists solved that problem already; if everything is made up and can only be observed through our preconceived notions and there’s no way to prove a world beyond them, then it doesn’t matter. The universe we can observe is reality and everything beyond that is beyond meaningful definition and is therefore useless, which is how we define “philosophy”.

    source
  • slackassassin@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Math is not an invention. It’s a discovery.

    source
  • JackbyDev@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Math is definitely universal. The math behind things in science wouldn’t suddenly change on different alien planets. Take things like V = IR. That relies on multiplication and division. It’s gonna be the same on other planets. The units, notation, etc. will be different but the concepts would be the same.

    source

    • BackOnMyBS@lemmy.autism.place ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I’m no STEM major, so I may be way off, but this is how I see it.

      V = IR isn’t math. It’s a way of defining the relationship and outcome of two specific physical qualities. It says that we combine the resistance of a medium ® with the current flowing through it (I) into another joint quality we call voltage (V). We do this because it makes our understanding of the physical world easier to manage since this relationship has helpful applications.

      Math is simply patterns in the relationships of quantities. It excludes any physical units or qualities. In other words, math is the art of counting.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Hardy@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Bruh… then imagine how hard a philosopher’s world would be like…

  source
• Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I don’t understand this meme format. Are the speech bubbles the texts received or the texts sent? It looks like they’re typing, so could be both.

  source

  • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I assumed the bubbles are the texts sent, but I could see the argument for the other side too.

    source
• peyotecosmico@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Engineering has enter the chat: hold up…

  source