So... Now that the dust has settled, which is it, Veeky Forums?

Fuck off, you hypocritical hippo.

Math understanding consists in realizing how much real mathematics is.
From experience, people who think math is unreal are completely crippled when it comes to manipulate simple formulas or prove theorems (the mere assigment becomes impossible to do without knowing the answer in advance to them)

you think that happened with Einstein though? like what?

ad hominems don't make him right,

but yeah he was right.

Technically, math isn't real. We made it up to help us do and understand things. The universe simply is what it is - we describe it, for our own understanding, using math.

Wrong.

all i'm talking about is:
>Neither, one is a tool, the other an application of the tool.

that's just not true. they're separate.

you can do physics without any math. e.g. "the harder i push something, the faster it's motion changes," or, "if i let go of this on Earth, it moves towards my feet."

to not put math down, it, of course, can be applied to a whole range of things outside of physics.

but yeah

I didn't say it was the only tool.
That is purely your implication.

The thing that this image skirts around is the fact that the scientific method is completely dependent on the mathematics of statistics.

Any failing of mathematics is also a failing of science, but the reverse is not true. Hence mathematics is strictly truthier.

well, the post says physics is an application of the tool of math. it's not defined by that. it's that, and more.

otherwise i can't really tell if we disagree.

it's hard to reason out what happens in a "failure of mathematics," because in a sense, it's asking, using logic, "what happens when logic doesn't work?"

the point might seem trivial, but i believe it's important. (for one, it gets at the existence of "real stuff" behind the math)

Math. Because proofs provide 100% certainty. Apply proof by induction onto science and you have 100% certainty in a subset of knowledge in the science.

It's hard for something to "fail" when you construct it entirely such that it's axiomatically consistent with itself.

The post is ambiguous.
It could also mean that mathematics is applicable to science, or that science is an application of mathematics.

Great, we are 100% certain of something we made up.

Doesn't help us explain the universe around us.

What I mean by a 'failure of mathematics' is anything by which you can critique it's truthiness.

E.g. you start with assumptions, my critique is that you have no method of choosing true assumptions to begin with.

The critique transfers to science since science starts with statistics, and statistics starts with assumptions. There's no way to demonstrate that statistics can be used to describe reality, but at least it's all good under its own axioms - science is essentially just the additional assumption that statistics can be used to describe reality, so it's strictly less truthy.

Also, any mathematics whose underlying assumptions are true is truthier than mathematics whose underlying assumptions are not. Even though both are perfectly valid in the context of mathematics.

i guess i'm not confident that we're describing mathematics by thruthiness. it sounds like we're just describing the "act of finding the truth" or some general sort of logic - in which case i agree, i'd take it over both math or physics.

Well, I tend to think of it like this...

There's a collection of propositions which are true. In this sense, truth is binary, however, we can extend it as follows. For a true proposition A, define it's faffiness to be the minimal number of if's required to produce equivalent proposition. Then, the truthiness of a statement is simply the inverse of the faffiness.

Statements that're true by grace of the fact that their assumptions are false are faffy, and not very truthy. Statements that require stacks of assumptions which turn out to be true are also faffy, and again, not very truthy. The truthiest statements are true conclusions with no premises (their downfall being identifiability issues). All of mathematics comes after that, then things other than mathematics.

Math truth is contained in the Curry Howard correspondence. Actually an axiom is just a finite list of types of data H1,...,Hn, a claim is another such type (let call this C)and a proof is a program which builds up an object of type C, from objects of type H1,...,Hn.
So if you *grant* me the hypothesis, you'll have mechanically the aforementioned claim.
Mathematical truth is *built*.

The pajheet:human ratio in engi is far more frightening

Only if you assume consistent systems are actually constructible. Proving something consistent only works if the system containing that proof is also consistent.
Say no logical system is ever consistent. Proving something consistant within such a system, then, is meaningless.
Thankfully, we assume consistent systems exist because doing so benefits us.

Math won so hard that it basically rewrote the whole field of Physics. Where's the debate?

Science requires math. Math doesn't require science. Therefore Math is better than Science.

Hey Veeky Forums, can you explain something to a non-scientific major? How come proving by induction shows that what you're saying is true, as you are ASSUMING that n is true for a general case, like n=k. What if that is not the case, isn't the point of induction to show something is 100% true?

Suppose there is something that holds true for all integers n, n >=0

Prove it for n = 0.
Assume it for n.
Prove it for n+1.

When you prove it for n+1 and proved it for n=0, this means that you can induct and therefore show it's true for n=0+1,n=1+1,n=2+1, ...

> exposes your hypocrisy with regards to ad hominem attacks
>accuse him of being a hypocrite, with an additional ad hominem thrown in for good measure

Is there something you wanna tell us, user?

The Science column is wrong; you make a hypothesis before you start collecting data, and you make observations only during a formal, controlled experiment. Conjectures are just the observations of the mathematical realm.

>implying science doesn't make assumptions
Nice meme.

>Even scientists agree.
Let's have, say, a dozen good examples.

Maybe, maybe?
Perhaps that you shouldn't comment on the hypocrisy of others, whilst being a hypocrite first.

They are very much human, bad attempt at comedy