Time to flood this community with educational memes! We have to meet the people where they are, and memes are the true art form of the people.

  • ArmedHostage [none/use name]
    9·
    4 years ago

    1+1=2 includes a lot of assumptions, that a binary operation in a ring produces this algebra (we could easily define "+" to mean "s+r+2" in our regular parlance, and thatd met all the requirements for it to be an algebra along with regular mutliplication). It includes definitions of what "1" and "2" are along with this rather mysterious thing called "=" is. If you read through principia mathematica, they dont get to "1+1=2" until well into the book, and even then it ultimately failed. Classical Greek mathematicians would have no idea what "1+1=2" is supposed to mean, but would show you how to add 2 measures instead. Mathematics is a wondefully mysterious subject that isnt encaspulated in equations, even the simplest equations belie some shaky ground we all take for granted. For instance, looking into something as simple as the interval between (0, 1) tells us something about the supremum of the set and we must introduce a new axiom of completeness to deal with it.

    The fact that your base idea of knowledge without context is a simple equation shows how your education has led you to be automaton-like or calculator-like, you have been reduced to instead of a fully formed free thinking, creative, curious human into a creature that can recite simple mathematical observations without deeper reflection.

    • hauntologist [comrade/them,he/him]
      2·
      4 years ago

      I read this and it really just looks like pedantic wankery for the purpose of showing off knowledge of modular arithmetic and set theory. I don't disagree that even in mathematics, context matters and there are nuances that usually aren't known or appreciated by people who haven't studied it in depth, but to imply that the sum of one and one is two is some kind of nebulous idea that is only true within a certain framework of biases is flat wrong and imo disingenuous of you. That is some hardcore "well akshualy" style pedantry.

      Classical Greek mathematicians would have no idea what “1+1=2” is supposed to mean

      Nonsense. Obviously they wouldn't have any idea what that specific set of symbols means because language. But the concept would absolutely make immediate sense to them. The fact that their mathematics was based on physical geometric relationships doesn't change this.

      Making these kinds of claims doesn't help people understand how extremely context-dependent anthropological "knowledge" is. It does the opposite by implying that such knowledge is on a similar footing as mathematical knowledge.

      Also, good job insulting Rev as being an incurious, shallow, uncreative "creature" for making a perfectly valid and reasonable point. Ugh.

    • Rev [none/use name]
      1·
      4 years ago

      Thank you for the history lesson (I mean it).

      That said, it is quite laughably presumptuous of you to pontificate on my creativity and curiosity without knowing anything about me save for the participation in this forum. For someone seemingly valuing a holistic approach to knowledge this is awfully inconsistent.

      The main thing that bugs me here though is what you mean exactly by "deeper reflection"? What is being reflected, what is the reflecting medium and where is the reflection re-directed? How can you tell the depth from the surface, is there a quantifiable axis and how is it subdivided so you know where "shallowness" ends and "depth" begins? Or is it just poetical speech aiming to manipulate emotions rather than explain? (The manipulation itself, or more precisely the ability to do so itself being the fruit of some specific knowledge)