Since all mathematics are fundamentally based on assumptions, is it safe to say that they're all bunk?

Since all mathematics are fundamentally based on assumptions, is it safe to say that they're all bunk?

shove those monkey pics UP YOUR ASS >:O

rude :/

>Something is based on assumptions?
>Best make an assumption about it being shit!

kek

well you arent wrong, thats an interesting way to think about it

its actually rather ironic...

all we have are assumptions and ideas about imaginary numbers yet we treat them like universal truths

yet we have a bibal: a physical solid explanation of life literally written on stone essentially by jesus and scientists treat it as haram

go figure lol

we got some guys dreaming up squiggles and notations on one hand that only a handful of people in the world can truly say they understand

and the other we have a 2000 year old manuscript for life itself that is accepted by billions of people as a work of god

which "assumptions" should we really put our faith in...

If our laws about imaginary numbers weren't correct our circuit designs wouldn't work

>decades/centuries of rigor
>they're just assumptions

I'm so fucking done with Veeky Forums. You motherfuckers troll harder than /pol/.

They work, so no. Something that is bunk doesn't work all the time always.

>imaginary units measuring real things

but how do you "know" that?

you're assuming they wouldnt work if the circuit designs were "flawed"

you're assuming the consequent

You can apply decades/centuries of rigor to building upon an assumption. Effort does not magically make an assumption true.

> If our laws about imaginary numbers weren't correct our model of circuits wouldn't work
ftfy

nobody cares what you feel
your protest is useless because of the two following facts being simultaneously true:
a. we need the results that the math produces reliably
b. you don't have an alternative that isn't equivalent, and you never will

>It doesn't make it automatically true!
By the same token you can't ignore the rigor simply because you don't like assumptions.

how do you know that though?

what if you wake up tomorrow and your math god has left and your dreamed up connections and theorems dont work anymore

what if at the same time the bible becomes the thing we base our circuit designs off?

nothing is ever constant

the universe is incalculably old, we are but a speck of dust in a sand of time

believing that your one truth holds all the answers is just as silly as believing that the earth is flat.

heres a final blow to you. the bible was right the whole time

the bible said the earth is the center of the universe, then snooty maths tried to disprove it. fast foward some hundred years and we find out THE EARTH IS AT THE CENTER OF THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE

let that be a lesson to you that nothing is ever absolute and math doesnt always have all the answers and it just as fallible as everything else

joke's on you, I AM AT THE CENTER OF THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE

>what if you wake up tomorrow and your math god has left and your dreamed up connections and theorems dont work anymore
Fortunately, that's not how it works. What-ifs are not arguments. You have to PROOOOVE them with RIIIIGOOOOR.

>rigor
I wish this meme would die.
Just because you're stupid enough to devote a lot of time to something doesn't mean it's correct.

what is rigor but more assumptions?
>make more assumptions to justify initial assumptions

what is proof but affirming the consequent?
>prove it to be true by assuming it can be prooved

Every point in space is the center of its observable universe

THE BIBLE WAS RIGHT why are people still responding to this troll

except that this can only be done on earth so earth is still the center of the observable universe?

stick your head out your window right now and look up at the stars, where is your head and where are you looking? on earth and the universe is all around us

>mathematics are fundamentally based on assumptions
it's safe to assume you know nothing about the fundamental bases (plural) of mathematics

No, I can make the assumption that there are two coins in your pocket. It is either true or false. An assumption either coincides with reality or fail to coincide with reality.

Maths is not science. It's the most useless waste of time hobby ever with absolutely no real world applications. Nothing would change if all the mathematicians all died right now.

Only if you don't like the axioms in mathematics, but why wouldn't you? What do you dislike about them? Do you think the axiom of completeness is bullshit? Do you not like the definitions of certain terms?

Center of the universe =/= center of an object's observable universe. By definition, the earth is the center of humanity's observable universe.

I don't even know why I'm correcting you, you're obviously trolling. Nobody is this stupid.

The axiom of completeness is logically incoherent since it assumes the existence of R

Are you suggesting that R doesn't exist?

Are you implying it does?

...

Sure, they are used to accurately model countless systems and phenomenon. You could call these numbers whatever you want, you could use a base 3 number system where your whole numbers are x, t, j, tx, tt, tj, jx, ... and build the real numbers out of that and you'll find the same patterns as you would with the comparable set of numbers (ie. pick natural numbers, integers, rationals, or reals) mod 3. The numbers themselves are arbitrary, but the patterns exist. What possible reason do you have for thinking R doesn't exist?

see

It's safe to assume you know nothing about the basis of gorilla posting