We are part of a Universe, self conscious. We began to use symbols and signs to represent numbers. Numbers have a meaning, an association with something in our world, but it is constructed by us. We try to explain the Universe with Math that we "invented". Could it be, that we can only reach out to a certain extend and that after a certain extend we understand that we need to reinvent a "language" like math to explain and understand bigger Problems in our Universe? Would it be Math 2.0? Im never on sci but this question popped up this night. Can you please discuss with me? As im not a native english speaker please use "simple" words. So i wont experience a communication difficulty like we maight will have in math? thanks :)
Math is based on what we think is logic but our logic is limited to our mind and understanding... (Op here)
Lincoln Sullivan
bump
Easton Cooper
are you still alive? did i anything wrong?
Carter Gonzalez
""
Noah Kelly
Guys its a serious question? Why are you hiding :c
Kayden Hall
We have added so much math to math that the people who invented math wouldn't recognize it. We have entire fields of mathematics to discover things that not only don't exist in real life, but are based on things that are based on things that don't exist in real life. We've gone past Math 2.0 already, we're probably in Math 5+ or something by now.
James Roberts
How does it come that the old terms still work? Can we realy base everything up on the logic from that time ago?
Chase Smith
nothing is based on the logic from that time ago mathematics was completely rewritten to incorporate an axiomatic foundation, set theory and the ZFC axioms not long ago (1900s or so) mathematics stop being about naively representing things we see in the world long, long ago
you would do well to read a book on set theory.
Jordan Bailey
>nothing is based on the logic from that time ago >mathematics was completely rewritten to incorporate an axiomatic foundation, set theory and the ZFC axioms not long ago (1900s or so) >mathematics stop being about naively representing things we see in the world long, long ago
my education is not well enough to do so and id need a book in my mother language
Jaxson Barnes
if it is not based on it, what is it based on? how close is it to reality? and how can i understand it than?
Noah Taylor
do you know a place where i could discuss such things and maybe learn?
Jayden Gonzalez
based on axioms, again, conventional math can be understood as based on ZFC (though you can go deeper with classes and category theory)
what you're asking isn't about math, it's about what science is. let me answer briefly: reality might as well not exist. we can't talk about reality in any meaningful way. we can talk about our observations, and we can create models that seem to make sense and seem to work for all our observations no matter how much we try to disprove them. that's what science does. it doesn't have to be "true" or something meaningless like that, it just works.
Christian Torres
well how can we conclude what will happen in certain situations without observation?
ZFC?
Angel Sanders
there are two parts here 1) Science: Take the observations, make a model that fits all the data. 2) Math: Take the model, based on the assumptions the model makes, deduce what is true and make tools for it.
Zachary Bennett
i still dont know what ZFC can you explain it first? Maybe that helps
Im sorry maybe you waste your time with me im like realy stupid. I do not know about all the symbels, about functions or integrals and all that - i guess im worse than a highschool absolvent; if you still want to discuss with me or help me please let me know within 10 minutes so i can decide if i go to sleep or stay up
Ethan Bennett
i try to learn all that on khan academy currently
Adam Hernandez
...
Nolan Jenkins
OP, you wanted an example, here it is:
Describe wave-particle duality by a single function, not 2 different models (wave and particle). That is somehting current mathematics can't do as far as I am concerned.
Tyler Diaz
I'm in a car bored, but you prob won't pick this stuff up on Kahn Academy. Wildberger is the only good youtuber I know that delves into set theory, but he's unconventional and I'm sure theres others. Just get your basic algebra skills up to where you can solve equations in your sleep, then pick up any intro math textbook; most have a naive set theory primer right at the beginning.
Samuel Jones
i will try my best guys and thanks
Jayden Barnes
This board has a worse shitposting problem than /v/
Carson Martin
You have it backwards
Math was not created to explain our reality
Math can explain ANY REALITY. Coincidentally, one of those "any reality" is our reality. So physicists use math as a tool.
