Is mathematics discovered or created?

Discovered from the axioms, I believe. The axioms being created.

Discovering is finding something that was always there I think. So for example, Archimedes found pi, but the ratio between the circumference and the radius of a circle was always there. He didn't create the ratio, he discovered it. I think. I'm not a math philosopher.

It's a description of reality. There are endless possible ways of describing reality. Humans have created this particular way.

Yes but couldn't you say mathematics was already there for us to discover? The only way you can really rationalize this point of view is through belief in a divine entity setting our lives up. For instance, Plato understood geometry to be on a very high level of reasoning, with the forms. The closest to perfection.

Lol come on man really?

It is discovered from observation of nature

Hey OP, guess what?! I have exciting news!

I have made breakthrough discovery using only my mind! Unicorns!

this desu

But has a good point of view, anyway that mathematic language is used to describe the physics that rule our universe and has not yet failed.

Out of all math knowledge only a little tiny bit of math can be used to somewhat coarsly describe the universe.

Mathematics is simply the name we give to how we perceive quantities in our universe. It isn't discovered or created, and it doesnt depend on us. It simply exists.

The language was created.
The concepts, rules and relations were discovered.

I like 3Blue1Brown's explanation. We discover non-rigorous truths, and then invent/create the rigorous proofs for why those things are the way they are.

But if you make the assertion that the axioms are discovered, then you must make the same assertion for all of mathematical knowledge, correct?

>the hardest math problem is a CS question
>mathematicians literally cucked in their own field

feels good to be on top

>computer (((scientists))) can't answer it and have no idea how to even begin to approach an answer
y-yeah we sure are on top

Like the top half centimeter of a vast and towering pyramid whose foundations go back thousands of years?

The fuck are you sophists talking about. Greeks DISCOVERED that the interseccion between a plane and two cones created circles, hyperbolas or parables, then they MADE the ecuations so they could altere those figures. How can something by the proper definiton of made be even discovered?

>the natural phenomenon was DISCOVERED
>a mathematical description was CREATED

So you agree with me? Why call me a sophist?

It's one cone. The intersection of a plane and ONE cone produces either a circle, ellipse, parabola, or a hyperbola. Depending on the shape of the cone and angle of the plane.

Now for your fundamental claim. You seem to be stipulating that because they created the cone that it was a created property, not discovered. But what is the circle, but the third postulate of Euclid's first book? One of the most fundamental shapes ever constructed, a basic fundamental law in geometry, and the foundation for the invention of the wheel. A form, Plato would say, the highest level of contemplation very close to the highest "Good". Philosophically, surely this unnatainable 'good' embodies a direction, a path, the sun, ideas and constructs which are discovered, since it already theoretically exists.

This circle.

Is the base.

Of that cone.

All that's left is to connect all generators one the cone, to a single vertex. Those are lines. That's a very simple construction as well.

Those hyperbolas, parabolas, circles, ellipses. They were waiting. Waiting to be discovered.

Miss click, sorry i panicked

Math is created, physic is discovered, stop bitching

discovered, only the symbols are variable names are created

Where do you draw the line though? A lot of mathematics IS physics. For instance On Floating Bodies by Archimedes could be thought the first work of fluid dynamics, and it draws a lot of its ideas from the properties of a parabola.

On The Equilibrium of Planes is largely an engineering treatise and I.6,7 two of the most important propositions concerning gravity and weight ever discovered were proven through a corollary of a proposition which was proven through a reductio ad absurdum of another proposition, you get the idea.

Essentially, the line between Physics, since it is really just fundamentally the attempt to mathematically explain the laws of gravity and the universe, and Mathematics is blurred.

He's right though. Computer science is literally going to obsolete mathematics in the future.

mathematic is

It's both.

Physics language is maths, thats the line. If you dont undertand read a dictionary

No. By non-rigorous truth he did not mean axoims. Most things taken as axoims are usually taken WAY after the fact, in order to put actual proofs on solid ground. Those "truths" are the math that we all use everyday, would use in a given situation, and have been using for thousands of years despite not knowing of a proof for any of it, because we already know it works and represents the world nearly perfectly, we just don't know why, and mathematicians later fill in the gaps of why those things are true and then go even further to all the derived math, etc. THAT is the invention.

Our brain makes models and predictions of the physical universe all the time without using any mathematics.

used to be derived from intuition, nowadays is mostly made up sadly

Are you my little brother or cousin or something..?

created

Mathematics is a portrait of the inner workings of my brain painted with beautiful colors of universal symbolism onto a snow white 210 by 297 millimeter canvas. In the top right corner, boldly sits the signature, the moniker, the John Hancock, if you will, that immediately distinguishes my masterpieces from the rest...
Blood red, D+. Another job well done.

It makes more sense to say it's discovered. When one lays down axioms and derives properties out of it, it's no more than a true statement "if A then B".

These statements have always been true. It's logic. If I have 9 socks in 2 drawers, there is at least one drawer with more than 4 socks. it may comes from the construction of the whole numbers but in the end the statement remains "if we call whole number this and ... then B".

But MATH language is MATH, what the FUCK.

Do you have another defining line, this one seems very transparent and watery. When we stop talking about the mathematical properties of a parabola and start talking about the center of gravity, it magically becomes physics and not math in the middle of the fucking proposition? I need something a little more concrete.

Which of these axioms was developed AFTER geometrical laws were proven??

1. A point is that which has no part
2. A line is breadthless length
3. If a transverse across two lines makes the interior angles equal to less than two right angles, then the lines intersect at one point.

Because I can see how 3, Euclid's famous fifth postulate, would be derived AFTER the creation of proposition 29, but for fucks sake, most of every other axiom is like the first two, where there is simply a system existing already WAITING to be defined and interpreted, because that is the most tedious part, WAITING to have it's properties discovered, much like it is with the material world and physics.

Created, in the same way language and music are created. All of math is the rigorous application of axioms, and all axioms are ultimately man-made.

logic isn't created, it is unveiled, just like math.

Logic is a set of man-made rules. Math may be derived in some way from empirical observations about reality but it is a man-made "technology" like language and music.

I think it implicitely does actually. I think it kind of is math your ability to predict movement in space maybe or force and reaction. Obviously not exactly and might not be magnificent at it But your brain is still making calculations based on observed quantity. Pool might be a good example.

No, the principles of logic are unveiled, without them you wouldn't be able to think or form a sentence that can have a "true" or "false" value.

You are saying as if there's only one logic. Which is "truer"? Classical or intuitionistic?

I sometimes wondet if we can do this akin to some analogue computers that solve differential equations, only on a more intuitive level. That is, there's a small integrator somewhere inside the brain.

Linear

>Physics is a language used to describe the universe. The language is built up over time, but the universe remains constant, therefore physics is created.

Do you not know what discovered means?

>since people debate on whether a certain entire logical system is better than another that means there is no true logic
>since people debate on the correct model of the universe, that means there is no true model of the universe
nice leap you have there

The onus is still on you justify what "true logic" even means, and what conditions must be satisfied for a logic to be true

both include the law of contradiction and identity. If they aren't objective then none of your statements, including "Logic is a set of man-made rules", make any sense whatsoever. They conditions that make thought possible. They cannot be made-up.

>Is mathematics discovered or created?
Both.
It's a system constructed on a few axioms and definitions.
At the time it was created, and even now, nobody fully understands it.

A phenomenologist approach to mathematics is retarded.

>nobody fully understands it.
What did he mean by this?

I am deeply troubled by your assumption of their gender.

>their
I am deeply troubled by your assumption of a plurality behind that post

That he flunked Calc I and thinks math is too hard.

could black holes be perfect circles? or neutrons/protons/electrons

I am deeply troubled that you pointed out something that wasn't an error.
GTFO Veeky Forums btw

all creations are discovered perspectives, all discovered perspectives are creations

if you are talking about a single person, "their" is incorrect, the correct pronoun is "his"