Is mathematics entirely circular logic? I haven't taken much math (compsci major so not brainlet tho)...

Is mathematics entirely circular logic? I haven't taken much math (compsci major so not brainlet tho), but does math have any physical foundation or is it all manipulating symbols that we've made up?

Other urls found in this thread:

dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

If I drop a 10 gram ball onto your foot you won't mind, if I drop a 1000 gram ball onto your foot you will mind.

formally, mathematics is just symbol manipulation. formally, language is also just symbol manipulation, so everything you can conceive and communicate to someone is "just symbols that we've made up". that's not the point. the point is what those symbols represent.

Any four objects make six unique pairs. Math is the study of abstract quantity and structure.

3 good replies ITT, too bad OP won't understand any of them.

>compsci major so not brainlet tho

Actually, mathematics was invented to model discovered mathematical phenomena.

Many high level mathematics don't have any representation in real world.

This is the circular logic I was talking about in OP.

That's because of abstraction, the basis of mathematics has real world applications.
Just like the basis of computer science was very tangible, such as the difference engine.
However, when you move into gradually more and more complex problems, it increases in its abstraction to solve those ever more abstract problems, such as hyperdimensional spheres being 'spikey' and in computer science, the intangible nature of quantum computing.

But it is true, the invented tools to chop down trees, prior to trees, there were no tools.
Mathematics is tool for mapping mathematical phenomena, or at least, it was, but as mentioned above, it has entered abstraction, but it is still mathematics.

I never said those symbols represented things in "the real world", whatever you think that means. math has its own inner workings, and the abstractions build on themselves. if you ask how we know they aren't abstract nonsense, well, we're pretty sure and from time to time physicists and others find that the abstract machinery is especially well suited to study models that help them do science.

>*the invented = we invented

It's not circular logic. It's just establishing relations between concepts.

The symbols represent ideas and don't really matter, just like in language.

what the fuck are you even trying to say? order your ideas and think if you even have something to say.

not really. some things in math are invented to study other things that are already there. like number theory, it studies numbers, which are already there, using more advanced machinery.

>what the fuck are you even trying to say? order your ideas and think if you even have something to say.
>Too dumb to understand, so gets angry and lashes out.
Fucking brainlets, man.
You try an make it as simple as trees and tools and yet they STILL throw their toys out of the pram because it isn't as simple as cubes in information theory.
I'll try again:
DUH WE HAZ DUH MAFF, THE MAFF NEEDS DUH LIKE DUH UMM MEASURE, YES?!
SO IF WE NEED DUH MEASURE, WE NEED DUH TOOL?!
SO DEN LYKE WE INVENT DUH MAFF. :DDDDD

if you don't have anything to say, then shut the fuck up. you don't need to reply to everything.

I just explained why it HAD and sometimes still HAS REAL WORLD applications, you absolute utter moron.
If you fail to extrapolate from such a BASIC analogy and OVERSIMPLIFICATION as that, then you are an archetype stereotype of the dumbwit CScumbag.

you didn't say anything, dickhead. you said

>yeah it had real world applications but then it didn't but yeah as I said it did but then it has entered abstraction

and some meme you heart in numberphile about the horned sphere? for some reason

What?
Are you really that fucking dumb?
I said it had purely real world applications until the point of abstraction, when such applications aren't as clear.
Not:
>yeah it had real world applications but then it didn't but yeah as I said it did but then it has entered abstraction
But you're too fucking stupid to understand the nuance.
>and some meme you heart in numberphile about the horned sphere? for some reason
Ah yes, because you don't learn outside of your meme YouTube education.
Fuck off Dunning-Kruger, you don't belong here.

>nuance
kek

>Literally not an argument
>Literally too dumb to understand the concept of nuance
For shame, for shame.

Its built on axioms that we admit are logically arbitrary but nevertheless lead to conclusions that seem to best model the universe, so they're the ones we stick with

It has been proven, however, that these axioms will never be enough to prove everything that is true so sure you could argue its ciruclar

>incompleteness implies circularity
????????????????

You need more axioms to demonstrate completeness of any set of axioms

that's what incompleteness means, so?

Any bets the person who made that pic is an engineer

math is a language/philosophy we made we made up to explain things, like english or music

we look up and called the burning ball of fire the sun, we call that specific vibration of a string 'A', we call a collection of 1 and 1 as 2

>math is a language/philosophy
please fuck off

It's true, math is useless unless it can be applied to benefit humanity but using it to benefit humans makes it into something subjective. So you have the choice of something that's completely objective but useless, or partially subjective but useful for society.

The basis of math is always objective, but the "point" is always subjective.

feelgsgoodreplyman

Is programming entirely circular logic? Does programming have any physical foundation or is it all manipulating symbols that we've made up?

Your programming is a grandchild of mathematics

start from axioms and build up from there

if axioms are compatible with reality, then the math is too

if axioms are incompatible with reality, then the math is too, doesn't make the logic wrong tho

take your meds

>Is mathematics entirely circular logic?
This question is absurd.
>does math have any physical foundation
Also, how many fingers do you have?
> is it all manipulating symbols that we've made up
>compsci major so not brainlet tho
>compsci major
>so brainlet tho

It is the compression of many truths into just a few axioms or the decompression of the axioms into the many truths.

It is similar to law or religion where you start with a list of all of the goods and bads and characterize them by a smaller list of rules.

In all of these cases we do it backwards where the list of rules is sacred and everything that follows is sacred whether we like the conclusion or not.

>claims to be CS brainlet
>doesn't know what recursion is

you needs to do some more reading user:
dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

Analysis is the blueprint for precision that can be used to build many things in a smooth continuous manner

Algebra is the blueprint for mapping a structure in space and relating its structure to the space it surrounds and occupies.

They connect to reality in a way that is not specific because the world is a big place with many rare things. Look up books on non associative algebras or nonlinear pdes. Math has to be generalized to touch these areas equally. The price for generality is abstraction.