|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 10, 2023 20:19:06 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 12, 2023 14:41:29 GMT
I agree that it's really bad to hear that kids or students should do lots of work to get somethig, but honestly speaking this is almost everywhere now, considering that life isn't going better. Anyway, many Engineer I knew were truly good guys. I always envied them to be able to fix or to repair some devices, etc. DJ? =) That's nice. Personally I knew one guy from Donetsk, it was back in 2005 if I correctly remember it. He was a Dj in a club, and he explained me many things about how to use that turntables... or something. Back at time Hip-Hop or kinda things were popular. (I guess as today.) I wanted to know more about scratching the turntables, but the Dj guy told me that his plans were to get as many girls as possible =) You are good in Math, and other fields, because you are smart, and you've got plenty talents. And you know, it is absolutely important. I mean not always we can understand it, but for those, for instance, who worked in Medicine these things are totally urgent and necessary to know. For instance, if a defibrillator was damaged, or some other as rentgen tools were broken, and there are no one to fix it - this is a catastrophe. Many years ago I guess people discussed those things more often, because they spend almost all their time in such areas, and there were no much time to have fun. I know that for us today it is not the same that for the people from the past, however we can say something about it... I guess you are totally luck to be able to study it in Cambridge way. Believe me, now I am in the middle of translating a logical textbook into Ukrainian, and before doing it I read lots of different textbooks from plenty countries. (And it's not about logic only.) Textbooks from USSR or kinda - are so awful. However, when I was in school all I could was to read them. There were not so much alternatives. Those textbooks were better as bricks, not as a science work. It is completely useless to read books just to be able to repeat definitions, not to get the information. If you did such a progress in Math and other fields this means the system of education you had was very good, and the teachers were truly decent people. Yes, the course work in India is extremely tough, and our government council of education, NCERT, publishes text books, which has extremely tough questions to solve. Teachers in India are good, because government don't compromise on this aspect. Indian schooling system is extremely tough, and grilling is hard, but that's what takes us to next level. There have been many entrepreneurs from India, who studied from IIT, and have done well. That itself proves that Indian education was good, at one point. In our days, teacher used to be very strict with us, but with corporatization of education, teachers are under tremendous pressure to perform, and kids complaint against them. These are sort of bullies, or losers, who actually don't do anything. Earlier, India followed USSR model of education, which I would was extremely good, and emphasis was on logic, mathematics, hard physics, chemistry. But, even India is following Americanized model of education, so things are changing here too. Don't know what to say. USSR had many decent programs, that's not a lie. However, it had many other underwater rocks. I got some books, published in USSR about logic, because I continue reading logic from different sources. And may add that there were lots of translations, and lots of materials took from Finland (J. Hintikka, for instance), Poland (there are plenty of them; perhaps, more than 60%), and other regions, because as a matter of fact USSR included many different regions. And it's like you know to play the All-star league versus others. Surely such a system wasn't so bad. There's another thing that is fair for many countries all over the world for a long time – the level of education becomes lesser and lesser, and the quality of it is going down. On the other hand, such processes might become inevitable. Not everything in this world is the same as yesterday. Unfortunately (or luckily, depending for whom) each day brings us more and more challenges. Anyway, my personal thought is that Indian students are talented, and kind persons, and that is what allows them to go deeper and deeper into the complicated subjects. We're not only mechanical creatures (I think even those who denies a soul would agree that each person has something additionally), and that's why they've got good souls, better psychology. Even in sport things are quite the same, and psychology is extremely important. By not blood brother was a sportsman (acrobatics), he won few prizes, and we talked with him about different things, and he said me that long ago, about the importance of being calm, cold-blooded, etc. My thought is that European style is fast. Unlike to that some Asian countries are less fast, they prefer balance and harmony. That might be an answer for instance why some Muslim philosophers as Avicenna or Avveroes brought logic to Europe making more advanced progress in reading Aristotle.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 12, 2023 14:46:51 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to. A=B , B=A, C=A A= 4 B= 5 -1 C = 2+2. I don't know what medications are you on before you post in philosophical forum 1+1=2 can be argued against.
Examples:
1 point added to another point results in the points becoming one point as one point is not different from the other.
1 drop of water added to another drop of water results in 1 drop of water.
1 acorn plus another acorn results in 3 phenomena: The two acorns and the 1 set of acorns.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 12, 2023 14:55:35 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to. Mathematics is a fallacy, and a psuedo science. I remember, teaching about Fibonacci Sequence, and I was surprised, that what exactly did he smoke, because, he has already set the first two numbers as 0 and 1. What's the logic? I know that it is based on counting the population of rabbits, but, how does that translate into numbers? It's this creepy thing, which I hate in maths. On top of that, all the derivations of physics are absurd, especially the newtonian mechanics, which has lot of assumptions, related to limit theory. But, limit theory itself looks like a weird stuff to me. And this is coming from a person, who has scored 9.7 out of 10 in mathematics in high school. So, no one can blame me on this. Math requires assumptions. These assumptions are justified and in turn these justifications become assumptions. If math was self-evidential then it would not have to be taught while dually people would not get math problems wrong when being taught. It is a perspective, nothing more nothing less.
The simple axiom of 1+1=2 can be doubted:
1. One rain drop plus another rain drop results in the raindrops becoming one. 2. One point plus another point results in the points becoming one as a point does not differ from another point. 3. One acorn plus another acorn results in 3 phenomenon: the acorn, the other acorn, and the set of acorns.
In college I did well with my introductory courses, well enough that one of my professors recommended that I continue studying mathematics...never took to it though.
|
|
lamburk
Full Member
Posts: 227
Likes: 80
|
Post by lamburk on Apr 12, 2023 15:22:41 GMT
Mathematics is a fallacy, and a psuedo science. I remember, teaching about Fibonacci Sequence, and I was surprised, that what exactly did he smoke, because, he has already set the first two numbers as 0 and 1. What's the logic? I know that it is based on counting the population of rabbits, but, how does that translate into numbers? It's this creepy thing, which I hate in maths. On top of that, all the derivations of physics are absurd, especially the newtonian mechanics, which has lot of assumptions, related to limit theory. But, limit theory itself looks like a weird stuff to me. And this is coming from a person, who has scored 9.7 out of 10 in mathematics in high school. So, no one can blame me on this. Math requires assumptions. These assumptions are justified and in turn these justifications become assumptions. If math was self-evidential then it would not have to be taught while dually people would not get math problems wrong when being taught. It is a perspective, nothing more nothing less.
The simple axiom of 1+1=2 can be doubted:
1. One rain drop plus another rain drop results in the raindrops becoming one. 2. One point plus another point results in the points becoming one as a point does not differ from another point. 3. One acorn plus another acorn results in 3 phenomenon: the acorn, the other acorn, and the set of acorns.
In college I did well with my introductory courses, well enough that one of my professors recommended that I continue studying mathematics...never took to it though.
Good. I also remember, while studying that bertrand russell's syllogism, and I got so much frustrated,that I was about to burn the book, but stopped myself. And this syllogism is the basis of computer science, actually. It just proves the point that mathematics is not a serious subject, and is completely based on some kind of assumptions. I used to struggle a lot in geometry, don't know why.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 12, 2023 15:27:01 GMT
Math requires assumptions. These assumptions are justified and in turn these justifications become assumptions. If math was self-evidential then it would not have to be taught while dually people would not get math problems wrong when being taught. It is a perspective, nothing more nothing less.
The simple axiom of 1+1=2 can be doubted:
1. One rain drop plus another rain drop results in the raindrops becoming one. 2. One point plus another point results in the points becoming one as a point does not differ from another point. 3. One acorn plus another acorn results in 3 phenomenon: the acorn, the other acorn, and the set of acorns.
In college I did well with my introductory courses, well enough that one of my professors recommended that I continue studying mathematics...never took to it though.
Good. I also remember, while studying that bertrand russell's syllogism, and I got so much frustrated,that I was about to burn the book, but stopped myself. And this syllogism is the basis of computer science, actually. It just proves the point that mathematics is not a serious subject, and is completely based on some kind of assumptions. I used to struggle a lot in geometry, don't know why. Then geometry is not universally self-evidential.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 12, 2023 15:28:12 GMT
Math requires assumptions. These assumptions are justified and in turn these justifications become assumptions. If math was self-evidential then it would not have to be taught while dually people would not get math problems wrong when being taught. It is a perspective, nothing more nothing less.
The simple axiom of 1+1=2 can be doubted:
1. One rain drop plus another rain drop results in the raindrops becoming one. 2. One point plus another point results in the points becoming one as a point does not differ from another point. 3. One acorn plus another acorn results in 3 phenomenon: the acorn, the other acorn, and the set of acorns.
In college I did well with my introductory courses, well enough that one of my professors recommended that I continue studying mathematics...never took to it though.
Good. I also remember, while studying that bertrand russell's syllogism, and I got so much frustrated,that I was about to burn the book, but stopped myself. And this syllogism is the basis of computer science, actually. It just proves the point that mathematics is not a serious subject, and is completely based on some kind of assumptions. I used to struggle a lot in geometry, don't know why. Bertrand Russell criticized syllogisms, which were written by Aristotle in ~250 BC (the first could be found in Ancient India in schools like Nyaa). Russell tried to get as far as possible from the idea that Math should have syllogistic foundation. He had been trying to create a newer system called Theory of Types. All this role in that was to escape paradoxes in that formalization. Such paradoxes occurred as in Gottlob Frege's so Alexandro Peano's works.
|
|
lamburk
Full Member
Posts: 227
Likes: 80
|
Post by lamburk on Apr 13, 2023 7:04:37 GMT
Good. I also remember, while studying that bertrand russell's syllogism, and I got so much frustrated,that I was about to burn the book, but stopped myself. And this syllogism is the basis of computer science, actually. It just proves the point that mathematics is not a serious subject, and is completely based on some kind of assumptions. I used to struggle a lot in geometry, don't know why. Bertrand Russell criticized syllogisms, which were written by Aristotle in ~250 BC (the first could be found in Ancient India in schools like Nyaa). Russell tried to get as far as possible from the idea that Math should have syllogistic foundation. He had been trying to create a newer system called Theory of Types. All this role in that was to escape paradoxes in that formalization. Such paradoxes occurred as in Gottlob Frege's so Alexandro Peano's works. Thanks, for the correction. Russell's was logic. I found it extremely confusing, actually.
|
|
lamburk
Full Member
Posts: 227
Likes: 80
|
Post by lamburk on Apr 13, 2023 7:06:27 GMT
Good. I also remember, while studying that bertrand russell's syllogism, and I got so much frustrated,that I was about to burn the book, but stopped myself. And this syllogism is the basis of computer science, actually. It just proves the point that mathematics is not a serious subject, and is completely based on some kind of assumptions. I used to struggle a lot in geometry, don't know why. Then geometry is not universally self-evidential. I felt that mathematics has always been mumbo jumbo and juxtapositions of numbers, and when these starts to grow, someone tries to create a repetitive process on it, which they call as formulaes or theorems, and they think, they are genius.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 13, 2023 17:45:21 GMT
Bertrand Russell criticized syllogisms, which were written by Aristotle in ~250 BC (the first could be found in Ancient India in schools like Nyaa). Russell tried to get as far as possible from the idea that Math should have syllogistic foundation. He had been trying to create a newer system called Theory of Types. All this role in that was to escape paradoxes in that formalization. Such paradoxes occurred as in Gottlob Frege's so Alexandro Peano's works. Thanks, for the correction. Russell's was logic. I found it extremely confusing, actually. You are right (many would agree with this) that Russell's (and also he developed his project along with Alfred Whitehead) was not clear. His type theory is being used in programming, but more as a language development, and because it appears to be practially useful. However, as a program, or an answer to many riddles it doesn't go further. And that was not his fault, but the fault of the total logicism program that was being mostly developed by a German mathematician David Hilbert. Well, what might be a bad point of Russell's logical view is its quite a complicated representation, along with it his book (again, with Whitehead) "Principia Mathematica" had completely proved step by step all the necessary theries for the Set Theory and logic for the time. We don't use many of them today, but the development of it was indeed tough. At least two of those theories were being criticized by the other mathematicians and logicians. I don't remember the names of those theories, but anyway, there were some fuzzy moments. Just also there's something I'd like to add, that despite faults and bad points of the Russell's work at the moment his theories and text were impressive. And his logical project was the most clear back then. Now we've got simplier and clearer ones, but it's due to such projects as Russell's, and of course, David S. Lewis's, A. Peano's, D. Hilbert's, R. Carnap's, K. Godel's, W. V. O. Quine's and others.
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Apr 13, 2023 20:07:09 GMT
Mathematics does not care if you don't accept the axioms of maths. Look around you, everything you see that is man-made are a result of what you are calling failed mathematic axioms. Mathematics are always evolving, just like science. And it is true that sometimes great strides are made when an axiom of math is changed due to advancing knowledge. Axioms are not written in stone.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 14, 2023 17:59:44 GMT
Then geometry is not universally self-evidential. I felt that mathematics has always been mumbo jumbo and juxtapositions of numbers, and when these starts to grow, someone tries to create a repetitive process on it, which they call as formulaes or theorems, and they think, they are genius. 1. Axioms needed justified. 2. These justifications are axioms. 3. Axiom occurs through axiom and from this, in certain respects, a self-referentiality in the quality known as the 'axiom' occurs.
Mathematics is just the number one self-referencing itself in new forms.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 14, 2023 18:05:44 GMT
Mathematics does not care if you don't accept the axioms of maths. Look around you, everything you see that is man-made are a result of what you are calling failed mathematic axioms. Mathematics are always evolving, just like science. And it is true that sometimes great strides are made when an axiom of math is changed due to advancing knowledge. Axioms are not written in stone. 1. Everything that is man made is an interpretation of how man views the world should be. 2. There are many people with many differing viewpoints of how the world should be, of these there are many who do not agree with the current status quo and do not feel well about it. In many respects the increase in technology caused a devolution in mind, body and spirit of the individual.
3. As an interpretation, mathematics is relative.
Your point is out context. Mathematical axioms, i.e. self-evidential truths, require a certain degree of subjectivity because of the 'self' nature in 'self-evidential'. Because of this not all axioms are accepted due to this nature of the 'self', i.e. subjectivity, in their interpretations.
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Apr 16, 2023 3:15:34 GMT
"3. As an interpretation, mathematics is relative"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....I meant, Ohhhh, okay! Once again, mathematic axioms, you know, the ones that are acknowledged and excepted by almost every freaking mathematician in current times, does not care what you think. Your seeming lackadaisical attitude about math is hilarious. You just invent and use logical and philosophical terms in very nonconstructive and incomprehensible ways, in what seems to be your way of attempting to show how "smart" you think you are. It never seems to advance the subject at hand, only to stifle the conversation. So, in turn most of the other people that wanted to have a reciprocating conversation just give up and move on, not all but most. Don't think so? Take a look at all of the people that no longer participate, and you are the one that they interacted with the most in their short time here. That is why I left for a period of time, because you are exasperating and tiring, and there are many other chat rooms and forums where I don't have to listen your foolishness.
Just a question, Do you EVER except that you may be wrong? Or do you believe that you're just the smartest cookie in the room at all times?
From this point forward, I am not going to respond or participate in any of your post (yeah, I know you are heartbroken about it) unless it appears that you are genuinely trying to have a real conversation.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 16, 2023 13:05:58 GMT
Mathematics does not care if you don't accept the axioms of maths. Look around you, everything you see that is man-made are a result of what you are calling failed mathematic axioms. Mathematics are always evolving, just like science. And it is true that sometimes great strides are made when an axiom of math is changed due to advancing knowledge. Axioms are not written in stone.
Ah, but the most axiomatic principle of all is that whomsoever can pull Excalibur from its stone;
that man, is King.
|
|
rexa
Junior Member
Posts: 78
Likes: 16
|
Post by rexa on Apr 18, 2023 17:39:28 GMT
|
|