/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10881973

24KiB, 620x346, 1500583709039.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 09:22:43 2019 No.10881973 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10882086 >>10882164 >>10882811 >>10882846 >>10882863 >>10882871 >>10882891 >>10882974 >>10883027 >>10883210

there shouldn't be any revelations in math, because it should (ideally) be obvious from the beginning

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 11:25:21 No.10882086 Report

Quoted By:

>>10881973
Anything in mathematics is trivial once proven.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 12:37:48 No.10882164 Report

Quoted By:

>>10881973
>muh math on a glass

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 18:56:41 No.10882811 Report

Quoted By: >>10882976

>>10881973
True. Intuitionism is the correct approach to math. The entire reason for math to exist is to explain the unexplained, if I have to first explain/learn math, it's a failed system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 19:15:08 No.10882846 Report

Quoted By: >>10882969

>>10881973
Math is the art of explanation. The point of abstraction is to turn a complicated problem into a simpler one whose solution is straightforward once the right formal machinery has been devised.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 19:25:40 No.10882863 Report

Quoted By:

>>10881973
>there shouldn't be any revelations in astronomy because everything was already there in the first place

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 19:29:00 No.10882871 Report

Quoted By:

>>10881973
>there shouldn't be any revelations in engineering because it should be obvious from the beginning

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 19:40:21 No.10882891 Report

Quoted By:

>>10881973
How's the view on mount stupid?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 20:23:08 No.10882969 Report

Quoted By: >>10882970 >>10883011

>>10882846
So it's about smart people answering questions posed by dumber people in a way, understandable to said dumber people? If so, a question, then. Why would a smart person need a dumb person to set out his before said smart person? Would it not be more beneficial for the smart person to ignore the dumbfuck and to go his own merry way using his own judgement as to what to interest oneself in?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 20:24:11 No.10882970 Report

Quoted By:

>>10882969
>to set out the goals before

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 20:25:11 No.10882974 Report

Quoted By:

>>10881973
Math in 21 century = intellectual masturbation

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 20:25:45 No.10882976 Report

Quoted By:

>>10882811
A friendly reminder that LEJ Brouwer is and always was a non-entity in the history of mathematical thought, that the paradigmatic shift was brought forth by Godel, not Brouwer, and 20+ years later too, and that said paradigmatic shift resulted in constructivism, not intuitionism.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Child Labor.jpg, 337KiB, 1100x778

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 20:39:37 No.10883011 Report

Quoted By: >>10883018

>>10882969
No. Not at all.
Think mechanical engineer vs. car mechanic.
The crystallized intelligence you both have relate to the same subject, but one is going to be better at solving a set of problems than the other.
You want to reduce emissions on all vehicles while the other guy makes sure the system you made keeps working.
You literally are saying
>"what point do dumb people have in an intellectual society"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 20:42:57 No.10883018 Report

Quoted By: >>10883025 >>10883031

>>10883011
Wouldn't it be more beneficial for whoever capable to go Fourier route, to claw one's own niche and to develop it consistently, instead of proving one's worth answering others' question said others ended up being incapable of answering themselves?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 20:45:48 No.10883025 Report

Quoted By: >>10883031

>>10883018
And yes, answering one's own questions in a consistent manner IS basically research.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO mathematics is not worthwhile.png, 1MiB, 1239x1758

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 20:46:38 No.10883027 Report

Quoted By:

>>10881973
There shouldn't be any revelations in math because such revelations will inevitably contribute to the industrial system.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 20:50:50 No.10883031 Report

Quoted By:

>>10883018
>>10883025
>to develop
>research
As in, you formulate whatever questions interest you, you find answers (research), you use those answers in order to formulate new question that interest you (development), and so on. Overall, r&d.

Somehow, I get an impression being a genuine inventor is heavily shunned in contemoprary scientific and mathematical circles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 22:14:13 No.10883160 Report

Quoted By:

Humans can't grasp the full depth of math at once, so we can only have light here and there at time. Math is beyond the human, at least what we call "math" exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 22:44:41 No.10883210 Report

Quoted By:

>>10881973
> there shouldn't be any revelations in math, because it should (ideally) be obvious from the beginning

Via proof-program correspondence, this is about as stupid as saying that there is no point in running programs because their behaviour is already given by the source code.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches