Can you prove math is objective?

Can you prove math is objective?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KSX6qXL4G20
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

well.... not me

1+1=2

Can you make more objetive method to explain this?

I will wait

1=1
2=2

And how in your path can explained the joining of two terms?

You only said 2=2

But how can you explain the joining of two singular things?

It is incorrect what you written and it is lacking a lot of important information

Whatever "objective" means, math is the way in which we understand that term. If math isn't objective, nothing is.

Or more precisely

I can't either, but I can copy paste though.

Yes, of course.

Once you agree on the axioms everything is just a logical conclusion from the next thing.

You need to read the axioms first to get an understanding.

No, math is convention, but reproducibility is objective.

Yes. I am not stupid, and I use math. Therefore math is objective.

Ah, yes. The
>you can't know nuthin
>am i being profound yet?
meme.

Looks like we've been had by those postmodernists again. Time to pack it up, [math]boys[/math]!

This is a philosophical question.

>agree on axioms
This seems to imply a normative subjectivity shared by a group and confirmed by the group. Objectivity can be introduced as a concept but it's still in part normative, not truly representational.

Is math related to science?

Why would I need to read the axioms?
It looks pretty simple and logic to me, you just trying complicate an easy language,if it is not please explain to me, saying I need to read something to understand is just a demagogy...

One fish plus one fish equal two fish
the most logical and objective way is saying 1+1=2

Math is logical because it is a "simple" way to quantify things and a simple way of showing if something is real or not.

See this shit in this pic, understand of math varies between cultures, yes it does, as our understand of biology.
It does not mean it is wrong though, we all agree on math because it is logical, can be reproduced.

The person in this pic is trying to be smart when he really is not, no one ever said math was a natural blueprint, but it is our natural blueprint to understand nature.

For example binaries, it is about something being open or closed, existing or not, positive or negative, this is not something open to interpretation of the viewer.

Philosophers think they are smart by asking "why" until we run out of answers, for fuck sake there is a more useless "science", I mean if they all went on a strike what difference it would make?

Sure. Rigorously define what "objective" means first.

Yes. Math is objective. The problem isn't it's lack of objectivity, it's that math is a tautology. It's values and mechanics are defined relative to more mathematics. I don't think you actually understand what you're trying to ask. What you're trying to ask is, "how can we tell that the relationships between parts of the natural universe behave mathematically or if math only incidentally seems to encapsulate it?" We can't. Now you think of a better method.

1+1=1+1
even if said object person atom whatever is exactly the same there will never be two of one thing.

Even if they are not the same, they carry the exact same properties and purpose to us, therefore it is not logical to account each fish individually.

If you have 500 hundred cups, in what way is more logical to write?

500

or

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

Again you are just playing semantics without being logical, 500 will express the same thing, easier to understand in an abstract form.

Therefore 1+1=2 is the best way... Even if the way you written is not wrong, it is confusing, and not pratical at all, When you say 500 hundred it is already implied 500 hundred unique cups

Math is the study of abstract quantity and structure, and hence is rooted in the objective metaphysics which is the real world.

Physics clearly is.

>Why would I need to read the axioms?
Because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

>It looks pretty simple and logic to me
It is not simple and it is only logical if you understand the axioms.

>saying I need to read something to understand is just a demagogy
No. It is the cold hard truth. You do not know what you are talking about, this subject is nothing you should express your opinion about since you are uninformed.
You wouldn't see a physicist having a serious debate about quantum physics with a music student.

>the most logical and objective way is saying 1+1=2
You have absolutely no understanding behind the meaning of "1", "2" or "=", you are applying some "common sense" to something which has no common sense.

>Math is logical because it is a "simple" way to quantify things and a simple way of showing if something is real or not.
Math has nothing to do with reality, you utter retard. It is objective because it is outside of any reality.
It is such an idiotic thing to say, that clearly demonstrates that you know nothing about math.

>abstract
>objective metaphysics

homotopy type theory
nuff said
brainlets get out of Veeky Forums reeee

Not him but.

>we all agree on math because it is logical, can be reproduced.
We do not agree on math, you have no understanding about it, the people agreeing on math are mathematicians (about 90%) of them.
Math is also not logical outside of its axioms and math can not be reproduced outside its axioms, math never had and never will have any relation to reality.

>For example binaries, it is about something being open or closed, existing or not, positive or negative
Completely unrelated to mathematics, unless you are talking about Boolean algebra.

>this is not something open to interpretation of the viewer
Yes it is, I have no ideal where you are getting your ideas from. But Boolean algebra only makes sense inside of its axioms.
Does "1+1=1" sound true to you? what about "1+1=2"?

>Philosophers think they are smart by asking "why" until we run out of answers
You also have no clue about philosophy.

>I mean if they all went on a strike what difference it would make?
What difference would it make if all (research) physicist went on a strike?
Do you think anyone would care?

>rooted in the objective metaphysics
How does ZFC related to objective metaphysics?

Science relies on math as a language. Especially physics, and quantum physics
Whether or not you define math to be a science, you won't get far in science without math.

Fake and gay

What difficulty do you have with telling that math was created by humans and incidentally matches nature?

why the homophobia ?

why dont you fucking neck yourself already fucking faggot cunt

Does it matter if you could?

Why the anger?

Can you objectively prove?

It isn't objective, your axioms are wrong.

1/3 = 33.3333333~
2/3 = 66.3333333~
3/3 = 99.9999999~ =/= 1

Checkmate numberfags.

Modus tollendo tollens incoming.

S1: Math is not objective
S2: Math is subjective

I must prove ¬S2, "math is not subjective".

If math were subjective, it would be left to the scrutiny of whoever was "experiencing" math, so to say. It would mean things like "1 means something different under the same context", or "multiplication rules are different depending on how you view it". However, this is clearly not the case. When we talk in a mathematical language, 25 feet are always 25 feet, and not 24 or 26. Likewise, math operations always yield the same result, therefore you can reproduce them.

I have proven ¬S2, therefore ¬S1, "math is objective", must be true.

I rest my case.

I'm not the user you're replying to, but I'd like to point out that by definition, if something is not part of reality, it doesn't exist. I was surprised when you capped your post with "math is objective" after explaining about axioms. Axioms are not objectively verifiable, they are generally accepted rules for math, and ultimately remain uncertain to some degree.

But how do you objectively know what 25 feet is?

peano axioms

More like, how do you objectively know what a foot is?

But I'll go with a meter because that's what you should be using.

How do we objectively know? Let Hank Green tell you: youtube.com/watch?v=KSX6qXL4G20

By the end of the video he stops with a cliffhanger. Thing is, we're redefining meter, gram, and other fundamental measurements based on physical constants, and this will be done by next year.

But that's not exactly what I'm trying to say. Assume that metrics are well defined.

Saying "1 foot" "2 feet" is akin to saying "1 sheep" "2 sheep" or "1 rock" "2 rocks". If there are, say, 2 rocks, there will be 2 rocks no matter the observer. And that's as objective as it gets.

1+1 = Holy Shit I Can Read!

Define objective

What if an observer adamantly insists that there is only one rock where another sees two? Who is correct, and what by what means can you determine the amount of rocks? Furthermore, is not the idea of a "rock" a man-made cut in an otherwise continuous string of stimuli?

This can get even deeper. Can we even define anything objectively, if we cannot even define what's directly in front of us? If not, then everything is subjective, and absolutely nothing can be objective at all.

Is objectivity a thing, even?

We CAN define what's in front of us, but with limited certainty. We have developed methods that allow us to approximate our world despite metaphysical uncertainty. Science creates models on the basis of utility and internal consistency. It is not objective, but it's as close as we can get.