Permanently Deleted

    • comi [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Is math describing reality tho :thonk: or are axioms of math informed by reality :thonk:

        • comi [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          But does one single thing in nature cares about a+(-a)=0 :thonk-cri:

            • comi [he/him]
              ·
              3 years ago

              Yeah, but it’s one of the starting axioms in math, if I remember correctly. Buoyancy is about pressures. but actually, if you think about it, vectors do be important, and -a is extension of them into scalars :thonk:

                • comi [he/him]
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  Well, goedel directly states I think that each set of axioms would contain unprovable statements in its language. But physics doesn’t do that as far as we know, so :thonk-cri:

        • comi [he/him]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Like, matter is not continuous, waves don’t care about imaginary numbers, it’s convenient abstractions :cheems:

            • comi [he/him]
              ·
              3 years ago

              That’s a fair argument, but suspicious effectiveness of math (or however this thing is called) is mainly in continuous thingies

              • MarxGuns [comrade/them]
                ·
                3 years ago

                Eh, I see it as a means to describe some ideas about something that you can reason about. Like programming languages, the description can be a leaky abstraction. Math used to be much more cowboy before some folks started trying to proof it from axioms, for rigorousness sake.

                The thing I think that's really neat is that you can come up with new ideas and create your own symbols and language to describe it if you wanted.

                  • MarxGuns [comrade/them]
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    There was some paper I looked at forget ago that gave me the impression that it was bespoke maths. I'm sure, though, that it could still be built with assumptions about some axioms.

                • comi [he/him]
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  But that argument is backwards, as integrals and complex numbers appeared beforehand (derivatives where directly inspired though) their use in physics. Just as vector fields and matrix operators. It’s mighty suspicious that you can go from like parallel lines not real into metrics and general relativity in very little logical steps.

                  • MarxGuns [comrade/them]
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    Complex numbers have applications all over the place though it seems like it's enough just to solve the 'but what about sqrt(-1)' problem. Doesn't sqrt come from geometry?

                    Integrals... yeah, not sure where those ideas for inspiration from. If you have some line, why would you care about the area underneath? Then again, maths types always be curious about every little thing.