Mathematics is the language of God. Can you do math Veeky Forums?

I've always rejected allocating time for the study of mathematics past algebra. the fruits do not appear to me to be worthy of the time required to invest.

what's the point? on a spectrum compared to philosophy/logic, history, science, where learning can assist you in achieving typical goals?

evidence?

All heavenly beings speak Enochian

YES.

Calculus is used in astro-physics so it put a man on the moon.

But if you wanted to live in caves eating raw meat and picking lice off your sister who is also your wife then go ahead and reject math.

>what's the point? on a spectrum compared to philosophy/logic, history, science, where learning can assist you in achieving typical goals?
You need math to understand science.

youtube.com/watch?v=PKExFcF2lHM

Honestly, although I agree with him on Islam, the most important points he makes is trying to make you aware of AI.

Really. No one will care about Muslims in 2030.

you misinterpret my question. I'm asking you how post-algebra is useful to me, not asking how math is useful to humanity. I can literally learn anything interesting mathematicians have learned through their labor by reading the results.

I haven't run into any issues in understanding scientific concepts yet, and I only have a basic algebra education. where do things start becoming incomprehensible? cosmology, particle physics, organic chemistry for example are all perfectly accessible.

hw thread
reported

Oh? Are you saying that you can understand papers like sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Preprints/Solutionjnbhab/paper.pdf with just algebra?

>You need math to understand science.

SCIENCE IS AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL METHOD, NOT A DOCTRINE, OR CRAFT —ONE DOES NOT LEARN SCIENCE; ONE PRACTICES IT.

SCIENCE IS NOT CONTINGENT ON MATHEMATICS, NOR IS MATHEMATICS ENTIRELY SCIENTIFIC.

ULTIMATELY, MATHEMATICS IS SUPERFLUOUS; IT IS MERELY THE EPITOME OF SELFENCLOSED INTELLECTUAL ABSTRACTION OF APPEARANCES; MATHEMATICS DOES NOT LEAD TO TRUTH, BUT TO ITSELF.

You can't practice science without an understanding of statistics.

ironic that you post an example I've already done some reading on, I'm sure you could find a topic I haven't. the solar neutrino problem was found to be a result of a misunderstanding on the nature of neutrinos. this paper seems to be a transitionary study during the process of determining this, concluding that more information is required.

THAT STATEMENT IS NONSENSICAL.

this isn't even true. statistical analysis is associated with softer "sciences". it isn't required when an experiment yields the same exact result every single time.

>it isn't required when an experiment yields the same exact result every single time.
Experiments tend to not yield the EXACT same result every time. You might do something a little differently without noticing, the instruments you're using are only so accurate, the conditions might be slightly different... There are a lot of factors that might introduce differences.

which happens never, expecially in physics

even third graders prove you guys wrong when they drop baking soda in a glass of vinegar and it makes the funny bubbles every single time. your semantical definitions of the scientific method are self-serving to the current argument, and are false.

>You might do something a little differently without noticing, the instruments you're using are only so accurate, the conditions might be slightly different... There are a lot of factors that might introduce differences.
If you have discrepancies in your data and you write it off as "human error", you are conducting bad science.

How is that in any way related to what I said? This is about NOT ignoring or writing off experiments just because they didn't all produce the exact same results.

I am saying that if you are applying statistical analysis to hard science in order to determine experiments with negative results as negligible, you are conducting "bad science". There is no reason to apply statistical analysis to an experiment outside of behavioral studies and some areas of physics(for lack of better instruments in research), and people don't. When they encounter discrepancies, they determine for human error. If human error cannot be determined, they go back to the drawing board. Applying subjective statistical analysis to the experiment is bad science, and there is nothing else you could be doing when considering statistical analysis and human error in application to science.

You've never taken a course in a scientific subject that included lab experiments, did you?
Also pic related

Plenty in five years of school. We didn't keep statistics on many experiments that are well-known for producing consistent results. Only in courses such as microbiology where we were extrapolating conclusions from a pool of data did we ever apply statistical analysis. You are referring to a tool that is used subjectively in many types of science, not a requirement for conducting scientific research.

Just as you do not need to understand metallurgy to understand a pair of scissors, you do not need to understand math to understand science.

>Plenty in five years of school
So no serious lab experiences
>We didn't keep statistics on many experiments that are well-known for producing consistent results
I don't know if you're the same person as (probably not as it looks like bait) but simply oberving that soda in vinegar makes bubbles is not an experiment
When you make an experiment and get numerical results, you have to check that your results are compatible with the theorical values, and you need statistics to do that.
I.e. if you get a lab value of (9.63±0.2) m/s^2 for the gravity acceleration on the ground, you know that your result is very well compatible with the theorical (or most accepted) value of 9.81 m/s^2.
If instaed you get a result of (9.63±0.02) m/s^2 you're far away from an accurate result.

If you don't keep statistics while conducting experiments, you're not doing any science. You're just playing with lab equipment.

>but simply oberving that soda in vinegar makes bubbles is not an experiment
That's false. While I agree with you that it looks like bait, he's correct. A third grader can determine that putting baking soda in vinegar appears to produces bubbles, every time, and this is science, whether you like it or not. Very simple and crude science, but falsifiable and valid information.

That aside, you've gone on to specifically seek out an example of a type of physics experiment which I have already mentioned requires statistical analysis. Behavioral sciences + some physics experiments =/= science.

I'm , I see stemfag conversation, and I'm unsatisfied.

is it true that math past algebra is literally useless to learn when other people can inform you on their results in a way that can be entirely understood without mathematical knowledge? I want to be proven wrong, but stemfags attach their ego too much to their work and refuse to engage in discussion with me.

if mathematics is the language of God, why isnt the Old Testament written in maths?

>typical goals
There's your problem, you can just adjust what you think is typical to suit what you know

The old testament was written by men, not by God.
The big book of nature was indeed written by God, and mathemathics is the language it's written in.

Lol, you havent proven that you understand advancded sciences that require "post-algebra" mathematics.

Ill just take this as you shit posting/baiting, unless you really are pic related but for Veeky Forums

That equation is a lie. You should be able to easily prove that to yourself.

>doesn't even gematria
>being this new

Bullshit. Derivatives and integrals are highly important. Tangential lines and area under the curve both yield important information. They're also hella easy to figure out.

*tips deist fedora*

The greatest Roman contribution to math was by the governor of Athens in the first century B.C., when he had the inscription retouched on Archimedes' grave.

guys. What's the real nature of math? I don't understand either

Here's my answer:
A picture is worth a thousand words but a good physics equation is worth at least a million words
Instead of describing natural laws in many vague conceptual paragraphs, it's much easier, deeper, and more accurate to describe it using mathematics because of how powerful it is as an abstraction. For example, Maxwell's four equations can be used to decribe all classical electromagnetic phenomenon with sufficient mathematical ability and physical intuition.
Everything follows a certain structure and math is the study of structures. Being able to translate a phenomenon in terms of math is great since other related phenomenon may be inherent in the mathematical structure itself.

equations from quantum mechanics ( which uses a shit ton of linear algebra, tensors, calculus, diff eq, etc.) are what allows your computer or smartphone to work. Semiconductors properties, band gaps, and tunneling are all measurable using QM. General relativity is used in GPS. You need calculus, tensors, etc to do any of that.

Jesus Christ man. The other day I measured the superconducting band gaps of Al-Al2O3-other material. Without math way past algebra, I would have no idea what kind of results to expect.

No. You are so wrong it hurts.

Maxwells + Lorenz force law describe everything classical. Although I guess you can get force law from maxwell stress tensor.

>not recognizing the quote

Literally all you need to know to do this is d/dx(x^n) = na^n-1

Literally all you're doing its finding the slope of the tangent of x. Its not magic.

>Derivatives and integrals are highly important.
these are logical concepts, they are not inherent to mathematics.

>Tangential lines and area under the curve both yield important information.
what information? information about abstract lines?

>For example, Maxwell's four equations can be used to decribe all classical electromagnetic phenomenon with sufficient mathematical ability and physical intuition.
I like your answer, you've taught me something. while this pattern isn't necessarily restricted to numerical values, it can be more efficient in some situations to infer information using mathematics than to learn that information individually. I still question the logistics involved, i.e. the amount of time and resources it takes to understand mathematics to the level required and if it outweighs simply learning the results that mathematicians have derived themselves, i.e. reading about how chemical compounds bond instead of preparing yourself to be able to infer how.

>are what allows your computer or smartphone to work.
>General relativity is used in GPS.
>semiconductors
I don't need to understand the ceramic industry or plumbing to shit in a toilet.

>The other day I measured the superconducting band gaps of Al-Al2O3-other material.
oh I better break out some textbooks because I have plans to do this next week!!

I don't think you understood my question at all.

Use chain rule. Also, I reported.

Veeky Forums can't even find God. What makes you think they can speak his language?
>t. Low IQ
You obviously don't understand the ramifications of being able to produce an answer from ignorance.
*tips deist fedora*

>God creates humans
>humans create math

Makes you think.

You are literally retarded. You can thank calculus and even a little linear algebra for physics, astronomy, chemistry, economics, buisness, engineering, and architecture. You can thank mathematical logic for your computer as well. Without math past algebra we'd still be living in the stone ages faggot. You just dismiss it because humanityfags like you are too fucking stupid to understand any of it. That's why you opt for the humanities instead of the sciences. Kys pleb.

God created integers, everything else is the work of men.

There is no "greater cosmic truth" in mathematics.

It's funny seeing all these humanityfags like you dismiss mathematics. Just proves my point that you're too fucking stupid to understand any of it. So you do the humanities to compensate with the fact that you're too fucking stupid to study something that requires real intelligence.

Humanities BTFO!!!

Lots of that existed before calculus.Computer binary is based off of boolean algebra, which is in turn based off of traditional formal logic.

>You can thank calculus and even a little linear algebra for physics, astronomy, chemistry, economics, buisness, engineering, and architecture.
I don't need these things to enjoy the fruits of physics, chemistry, the economy, the economy(again lol), engineering, architecture etc. you have misinterpreted my question.

>You can thank mathematical logic for your computer as well.
as I've already said, I don't need to understand the mathematical concepts behind a computer to use it any more than I need to understand the ceramic and plumbing industries to shit in a toilet.

>Without math past algebra we'd still be living in the stone ages faggot.
oh, I see. you didn't even actually read or attempt to understand my post. I'm not saying plumbing is unimportant. I'm saying I don't see any reason to understand plumbing when I can enjoy the fruits of plumbers labor without opening a book on fluid dynamics.

do you research metallurgy before using a pair of scissors? there is even a lot you could infer from observing a pair of scissors about their design without knowing much at all of steelworking. I feel the same way about science and mathematics. math is not worthy for me to learn past algebra, for it teaches me little to nothing about what is that I cannot learn from other people.

>Lots of that existed before calculus
And massive massive massive improvments have been made on them since calculus was discovered by Newton and Leibniz. Those disciplines have advanced much farther and have given us the modern world as we know it with the help of calculus. Very fundamental ideas in physics like Newtons laws of motion could not work without calculus.
>Computer binary is based off of boolean algebra, which is in turn based off of traditional formal logic.
Yes, computer binary is considered mathematics. Boolean algebra is mathematics, it is formal logic dipshit.

not him, but you are on irrelevant tangents. the question isn't whether or not mathematics is useful to a society, but whether or not it is useful to learn from the first-person perspective when understanding reality within the context of such a society.

you haven't really said much of anything of relevance at all, actually. you should be embarrassed, especially if you consider yourself educated in logic.

You fucking retard, you misunderstood my post. Maybe YOU don't need to know how it all works, and that's fine. If you want to be an ignorant normie fool all your life go right ahead. But the rest of the world NEEDS it. We need it build things. We need it to advance civilization forward. We need it to get to explore space. Hard working intelligent men and women who want to actually make some contributions to humanity need it.

>I don't need these things to enjoy the fruits of physics
You know so little about it that you can't even acknowledge your own ignorance.

what? you are on a huge fallacious straw man rant stating I said "mathematics is unimportant to society". it's irrelevant. re-read my first post and try to comprehend it this time. I do not and have not even remotely denied that mathematics has accomplished much of what I enjoy in society.

do you have anything to say on topic?

I'm sorry you're so upset. I'm STEM, low tier CS, and I can agree that calculus is pretty much unnecessary for most people, even people in CS. Not everyone is going to be a scientist, and calculus isn't the foundation of all science, engineering and computing.

Here we go, using your useless fucking rhetoric. Go jerk off to Hegel why don't you? The only people who asks questions like the one your proposing are obviously massivly ignorant. Of course it is useful to understand it from a first person perspective to understand reality. That is exactly what it is used for.

You should be embaressed, especially since all the logic you know is probably some bullshit Hegelian dialectic and not the true rigour in mathematical logic.

I'm not saying it's nessecary for everyone to learn, I am saying it is necessary if you want to be truly be considered intelligent and make contributions to humanity. But of course not EVERYONE has to know it. That is fine. Let them live in their ignorance.

>The only people who asks questions like the one your proposing are obviously massivly ignorant.
ad hom.

>Of course it is useful to understand it from a first person perspective to understand reality.
what can be learned about reality that I cannot learn without it? explain to me. give me one example.

>mathematical logic
are you even aware that mathematics is a field of logic and not vice-versa?

Guess I'm deaf.

>make contributions to ((((""""humanity""""))))
so you're religious? that explains some of your behavior.

I never said you denied that. I even agreed that you do not need to learn it, and I was simply trying to say that by not learning it that it only demonstrates your ignorance compared to people who are actually intelligent and know how to use it.

>as hom
So what? Ad hom is not always bad to use especially when it's the truth and people can see that.
>reality
Relativity dumbass.
>mathematics is logic
Indeed, it is. But it is not founded on your false dilaectical bullshit logic. It lays on formal logic which is the only true logic.

that's not what it sounded like to me at all when you were dishing out all of this random irrelevant crap about examples of things that mathematics have helped produce in society. we can both pretend, though, for your sake.

now you're down to basic redundancy. the question can be re-worded as such:

is there any reason to invest in not remaining ignorant of mathematics past algebra, when you can simply read the results that mathematicians have determined? it seems equal a skill as learning to drive a truck or fix pipes to me, just a labor that some people devote much of their time to.

I don't see any reason to compare myself to others on the spectrum of mathematical knowledge. seems a little arbitrary to me. did you know you're completely fucking ignorant about fishing compared to fisherman? doesn't that upset you?!

Well you completely miss my point. Mathematics is not in anyway arbitrary. It cannot be compared to things like fishing. Mathematics is the universe. It is the very foundations of everything. It is more than just a skill, it is knowledge itself. That's what I am saying. And that's why I am simply telling the truth by saying you're ignorant by not understanding it. Maybe you don't need to know it, sure, but you'll just be an ignorant tool normie all your life understanding little about the universe.

>Ad hom is not always bad to use especially when it's the truth and people can see that.
it's not an argument. you might as well say nothing, there is as much relevant material in saying nothing.

>Relativity dumbass.
but I understand relativity. I think most people who understand the concept are unaware of the underlying mathematics, by far. I'm talking like 99% of people. you don't need to know numerical specifics to understand matter/energy/speed relationships, the same as, I'll say again, you don't need to know how a toilet is made to shit in it.

>But it is not founded on your false dilaectical bullshit logic.
straw man, I haven't used any or brought any up. ironically only you have defended being illogical, literally in the post i'm responding to.

>Mathematics is the universe
then what's all the crap flying around that isn't made of numbers?

>It is the very foundations of everything
then what's all the crap flying around that isn't made of numbers?

>it is knowledge itself.
math = knowledge, according to you now. I don't know how we got here. you're raving.

>Maybe you don't need to know it, sure, but you'll just be an ignorant tool normie all your life understanding little about the universe.
is there something I couldn't understand about the universe without understanding post-algebra mathematics? I doubt it. give me your best shot. enlighten me. you tried and failed hard with relativity(something they teach in middle school lmao).

Integrals and differential equations are beyond my reach

Can't understand them, likely as a consequence of shaky Mathematical foundations.

>Mathematics is the universe
>It's a religious STEMfag episode

Veeky Forums you need to ban this retarded tripfagg.

Do you even know the formulas supporting the theory of relativity? That would be incredible. There's a lot of complex material there.

>it's not an argument. you might as well say nothing, there is as much relevant material in saying nothing.
So what? I wasn't necessarily trying to make an argument there anyway. Although actually, perhaps in this context it does work. After all, I am demonstrating your ignorance.
>but I understand relativity. I think most people who understand the concept are unaware of the underlying mathematics, by far. I'm talking like 99% of people. you don't need to know numerical specifics to understand matter/energy/speed relationships, the same as, I'll say again, you don't need to know how a toilet is made to shit in it.
You don't understand relativity. Knowing about some basic concepts is not understanding. It's much deeper and much more complex. It requires mathematical knowledge to actually get it. Let me ask you a question. Do you know what the Lorentz factor is? Because that's a pretty important thing to know if you want to have any grasp of relativity. Relativity is more than just "specifics", it is an entire branch of knowledge and study in physics.
>straw man, I haven't used any or brought any up. ironically only you have defended being illogical, literally in the post i'm responding to.
I'm making fun of your views on logic, not necessarily saying that's the kind of logic you are using. Though it wouldn't surprise me if that was the only "logic" you knew. Also, are you assuming I just mean Hegelian dialectic?

>I understand relativity
If you don't understand Rimannian geometry you don't understand relativity.

I'm am pure mathematics, but I do indeed know about many areas of relativity.

>then what's all the crap flying around that isn't made of numbers?
Everything can be computed with numbers, it is the language of the universe. Look who is being illogical now, trying to twist my arguments to make them sound like I am arguing that literal human symbols make up the universe.
>math = knowledge, according to you now. I don't know how we got here. you're raving.
Yes, I am a materialist, that's how I got that. That is my philosophical position. Everything can be explained by science.
>is there something I couldn't understand about the universe without understanding post-algebra mathematics? I doubt it. give me your best shot. enlighten me. you tried and failed hard with relativity(something they teach in middle school lmao).
They don't teach relativity in middle school. re you fucking retarded? Please tell me what time dilation is. That is an extremely important concept in relativity that can is mathematical. Don't think they teach that in middle school.

>After all, I am demonstrating your ignorance.
how so? explain.

>Do you know what the Lorentz factor is?
yes, it's a formula involved in determining information about objects in motion. understanding the numerical values of the formula itself is not necessary for understanding the results, as with all knowledge derived through mathematics.

>I'm making fun of your views on logic
what's wrong with them? so far all I've seen are straw men.

that's literally like suggesting "if you do not understand gravity you cannot understand relativity". you can apply mathematics to gravity as you can apply mathematics to objects moving in space. that does not mean that you need to understand specific numerical values to understand gravitational attraction or object acceleration.

it's the same argument over and over again. you guys are telling me I need to have a thorough ceramics and plumbing education before I can understand that a toilet makes my poop go away.

>Everything can be computed with numbers
being able to apply numbers to anything doesn't mean things are made out of numbers.

using your exact logic, I can say that everything is made out of adjectives. literally the same exact logic.

and no, I am not twisting your argument. I am demonstrating to you that your argument is crap, and you are confused when you realize it's crap, and because you are infallible it must be me who is twisting things.

>Everything can be explained by science.
so science = math now? this is another bold claim. I wonder how people invented anything before written language or computational devices.

>Please tell me what time dilation is.
it's a discrepancy in the perception of time elapsed between two separate observers depending on either the speeds they are moving relative to each other, or how near they are to an object of mass to each other. there's an anime that goes over this, let alone learning about it in yes, middle school. maybe education sucks wherever you are from. you don't need to understand underlying numerical concepts to understand that time functions differently for objects depending on their speed or relative position from an object.

>how so? explain
Well, I have been calling you out on your ignorance this whole time and time and time again I have demonstrated you are ignorant by your lack of knowledge of mathematics. And this will be further expanded when I answer you on relativity once again.
>yes, it's a formula involved in determining information about objects in motion. understanding the numerical values of the formula itself is not necessary for understanding the results, as with all knowledge derived through mathematics.
And without it we could not understand things like this. We could not have an understanding of the universe. It is mathematics. The universe is mathematics.
>what's wrong with them? so far all I've seen are straw man.
They're retarded, that's what is wrong with them.
>if you do not understand gravity you cannot understand relativity
Yes exactly! If you don't know what the fuck gravity is, then how can you understand anything in relativity?

What we are trying to tell you is that there are many layers to "understanding". Yes you don't need to follow all the mathematical formality to understand that two massive objects attract each other, or that when yhe velocity of an object goes up then it experiences a different relative time, but there is a reason we don't leave things like that nor we say someone "understood" relativity with those concepts. Maybe you know that a toilet takes your shit into a subterranean canal, but what happens when it breaks? Why is then that you no longer understand it? That's because you take for granted it's existence and yoy rest your mind knowing a plumber knows how to fix it, but then what you understand about it is really not such good knowledge at all. It alslo limits your world into a very restricted space where you cannot make really a lot of points. That means no one is going to care or trust your opinion about toilets. So if you have some understanding of how something works really says nothing so it's pretty much useless information. In the aame way, repeating what you read on a pop-sci book will only impress ignorants. Blame HS education for teaching handwavy physics because people are scared of math.

>being able to apply numbers to anything doesn't mean things are made out of numbers.
Yes it does dumbass, numbers embody themselves as objects and we represent them through little symbols we come up with.
>so science = math now? this is another bold claim. I wonder how people invented anything before written language or computational devices.
Everything is math faggot, when you take my view. Most of science is based off of math, and even in fields like biology and geology you can find math being used as for example in bio or geophysics.
>it's a discrepancy in the perception of time elapsed between two separate observers depending on either the speeds they are moving relative to each other, or how near they are to an object of mass to each other. there's an anime that goes over this, let alone learning about it in yes, middle school. maybe education sucks wherever you are from. you don't need to understand underlying numerical concepts to understand that time functions differently for objects depending on their speed or relative position from an object.
Yes you do, you can't actually grasp the full concept unless you know the numbers. Without the numbers, you have a very limited understanding of it. I have a feeling you're just googling all this too lol.

>Well, I have been calling you out on your ignorance this whole time
not at all, you've just been calling me ignorant without explaining how over and over. there is no demonstration involved.

>The universe is mathematics.
the universe is adjectives, using the same logic. my conclusion contradicts yours, even though it follows the same path of validity. strange, there must be something wrong with the conclusion. unless you wish to reject formal logic?

>They're retarded, that's what is wrong with them.
are you capable of explaining how they are retarded? I haven't seen an explanation. just assertions, sort of like your assertions as to how I'm ignorant that you fail to demonstrate.

>If you don't know what the fuck gravity is, then how can you understand anything in relativity?
you missed the point. I was demonstrating that it's not numerical values that you need to understand, but the concepts themselves. gravity is an easy concept to grasp without any knowledge of the underlying mathematical concepts. the same goes for relativity.

You are not helping. Math majors also tend to feel above all but science is not literally just math.

>22 hours
>no one has answered the question

I know this is a board of humanities fags but come on

>4*(x+8)^3*sec(3x)+3*(x+8)^4*sec(3x)*tan(3x)

>look everyone I can do a HS problem!

>not at all, you've just been calling me ignorant without explaining how over and over. there is no demonstration involved.
I have been explaining how, are you fucking blind?
>the universe is adjectives
Indeed, it is. Things can be explained through language, which can further be broken down into mathematics. Your conclusion is not contradictory at all.
> I haven't seen explainations
I have been giving explanations time and time again, else I wouldn't even be arguing with you. What I just said above this is a demonstration.
>gravity is easy to grasp without numbers
No, no it isn't. As the user said above me, there are many layers of understanding. Your "understanding" is basic and is not a full grasp on what these actual concepts are. I can say socialism is when the government controls your life or some shit, and many may find that to be an acute understanding. But others would say no, I need to delve deeper and actually study and read socialist and Marxist and even the other side like capitalist to have a full grasp of it.

He didn't even do a problem. He wrote one out and didn't even provide the answer. It's probably his homework and he's praying someone posts the answer.