Hi Veeky Forums, math student here...

>Badiou argues for resurrecting the idea of communism.

like every God-fearing man should

math is man's linguistic expression of his connection to the fabric of the universe

>uncannily isomorphic to reality
>we stretch math to fit reality post-factum
rolly mad me thonk

I'm primarily interested in the history of mathematics but I'm not sure if I need to keep taking math classes to satisfy the kind of knowledge I want. Should I keep taking math classes to learn about the history or can I just read history of math books and get a decent enough education? I would be entering only calc 3

this is what liberal rationalists believe

Should have done physics, brainlet.

the problem of rejecting maths or logic is that there is nothing left to care about as some discriminant, some categorization for what is experienced.
all that is left is only what is sensed and then there is nothing to do which too few people can handle

But we don't. Basics of math haven't really changed in millenia, and even stricter axioms are a century old. Since then, we've discovered myriad of areas perfectly described by math.

That would be like you developing a language with extremely complex and infinite grammar, so you can't even write all the rules, just say if the sentence is correct or incorrect. You and your circle of friends learn this language for fun, but you speak only in the most basic of sentences. Suddenly, an isolated island nation is discovered, and they've spoke your language for centuries. Not even your basic kind, but extremely complicated version. Of course, the words are different, but once you make a simple dictionary, EVERYTHING checks out. You wouldn't go "well I've made a dictionary, so it fIts just because of that", right?

>physics
>not brainlets who aren't cut for serious math

Physics + philosophy is the best combination for understanding the world.

Math is just the language of science. A pure mathematician can be likened to a grammarian who chooses never to read or write a serious work. In a sense, then, math is superior to the sciences (these being impossible without math), but in a sense worthless if not applied.

Also, from my engineering with a math minor undergrad experience, physics is more difficult than math.

Of course we do. There's plenty of useless math out there - some of it might become useful someday or lead to some other useful concepts, other parts will forever be confined to arxiv pages never to be seen by anyone again. Math isn't inherently isomorph to anything - it's merely a beautifully logical descriptive/prescriptive tool.

Kek. Yeah, "physics to math is what sex is to masturbation" is an old and shitty meme. Being proficient in math allows you to tap into basically every natural science and easily and quickly grasp the underlying principles. Physicists can into math to a good degree of course, but often get completely lost when it comes to things beyond a certain set of numerical methods. This is a matter of opinion, but I'm pretty sure advanced combinatorics and stochastic and functional analysis have overall allowed me to access much more insight into the workings of our world from the point of several applied disciplines, than countless hours of QCD and string theory would ever have. Also:
>being an engineering brainlet
I couldn't resist.

Yeah, maybe it's not inherently isomorphic (also arguable, by the way). But if a tool is immensely good at something, and the tool was concieved when we still knew very little about that something, does it not raise a question of inherent importance? That implies math is, at least for as long there is a man who can perform it, eternal.

I don't know, I just see some kind of esoteric beauty in math. Usually, anything infinite birthed from something finite looks boring: see Library of Babel, infinite nature of which is boring homogenous. The same is not true for math, even though the basic governing rules are just as simple as Library's.

I don't think anyone disputed the importance of math ITT.

>Math is just the language of science
Nice meme. What gives you the right to limit the scope of mathematics in such a way? The part of mathematics used by physicists is (and will forever be) a proper subset of the totality of mathematical thought.

This. Start with Ray Monk's "Duty of Genius", then move onto Tractatus, then PU.

>brainletneer
>presumes to be in a position to judge the "importance" of fields he's largely incompetent in
Veeky Forums was right again

Woops, wrong reply

Any of you guys have experience trying to learn math outside of the formal education system? I avoided stem classes as an undergrad and have come to regret that I lack a broader intellectual framework.

What do you want to know? It's not complicated, but it's hard. Just get some college course syllabuses and read and do exercises constantly. There's also a vast amount of resources online to help you with problems in understanding certain spots. That's if you want to learn math. If you want to learn about math - it's another story.

>it's hard

it's actually not even hard, people just think it's hard because in school you have to answer trick questions on pop quizzes and shit to give it an air of difficulty, the fact that kids can breeze through a math phd by like 20 shows it's just not that hard to plough through the material, you couldn't read half the canonical texts in literature much less understand them in the same time frame it takes to work through the math curriculum, you can be 19 and understand math, it's much hard to be 19 and understand life

what advice would you have for someone who wants to learn about math?

math is like any other subject you fucking pseud, read some books, watch some classes, do some drills to check if you get what you just read/watched

or you could just go sign up for a fucking math degree, there's no law that says you can only get one degree

learn propositional logic
then learn some elementary math like here
youtube.com/user/njwildberger/videos

What a retarded post. Please, don't talk about subjects you clearly have no understanding of.

ok pseudy buddy, keep trying hard

For history of maths there's Hodgkin or Katz. For general understanding, "big picture" and interesting quips there's Ian Stewart.

>Math isn't inherently isomorph to anything - it's merely a beautifully logical descriptive/prescriptive tool.
this can be said about any area of study
read a book, pseud

most articles on medium are self-promotional garbage, but one that i did get a chuckle out of was one by some guy who confessed he couldn't understand his own math phd, he had been working in the private sector doing data science or some kind of silicon valley bullshit that requires math grad degrees, and he was cleaning out his old shit, and reviewed his phd thesis and was like "lol i have no idea what any of this shit is! and probably no one else did either lol!"

Please, stop shitting up a good thread with your worthless contrarian autism.

>Usually, anything infinite birthed from something finite looks boring: see Library of Babel, infinite nature of which is boring homogenous.

then you shouldn't shitpost with your wikipedia knowledge either lol

most pseuds rely on youtube these days, wikipedia requires too much reading

If you have any arguments to present, please do. So far you have only shown to have no understanding what math or science is.

thought on what? ops retardation?

>durr i'm wrapping up my math degree and just realized 'm' is the weakest link in 'stem' and now i regret studying dumb shit

boohoo no one cares

>boohoo no one cares
So why are you even here? Go play in the meme thread with other ebin edgelords.

thanks, I think you misunderstood my post. I'm currently in linear algebra and am reading Frege's complete works so go fuck yourself. I wanted to know if anyone knew about history of math books to read that can put mathematical developments into context.
thanks but I already know that stuff.
actually thank you, I'll check it out

I don't like this new pseud meme, it cuts too deep.

OP here

Y'all are fantastic. I'll look into all of these.

I didn't learn much history of math in my degree, maybe a book would be better.

Are you starting from the beginning? If so, Basic Mathematics by Lang would be great before learning naive set theory and propositional logic.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that the subject is trivial, only that it's not "meaningful in the way that I thought," that way being that "there was some ultimate truth to be found in it." These are direct quotes from my post if you don't recognize them.

mathematics>physics just like poetry>philosophy

youtube has tons of great math lectures thoguh

youtube.com/channel/UC-akozxNLMPcMcs0qVvS1VQ/playlists

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbMVogVj5nJSxFihV-ec4A3z_FOGPRCo-

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLelIK3uylPMGzHBuR3hLMHrYfMqWWsmx5

jung, schelling - man needs mythic imagination

>I'm graduating soon and have for some time been haunted by the feeling that mathematics is just a symbol-game.

I've been through that phase and, in my opinion, you just have to accept that math REALLY is a symbol-game. Now the question is: is it meaningful? And if yes, in what way and to what extent?

I believe math is "meaningful" in a broad and empirical sense. Yes, I'm using the adjective "empirical" in relation to math. Most math professors and authors (in my experience) try to peddle an ahistorical, acritical version of contemporary math as the be-all and end-all of deductive science, something that comes out of our minds perfectly formed, like Athena in full armor from Zeus' head. But that's not how it works, if you ask me.

In the first place, how do we pick our axioms? Experience, more often than not. Same goes for theorems: a mathematician is usually already persuaded that a theorem is true even before he manages to get a formal proof. "Conjectures" are about as important as "proofs" in math, perhaps even more important. First we conjecture that a certain theorem is true (and we arrive through this conjecture through non-deductive ways: experience, analogy, intuition, divine inspiration or whatever) and then we try to prove it. Deduction is, in a certain sense, almost an afterthought. A deductive proof is a confirmation, it puts the conjecture on a more solid basis and it wins for the conjecture the honorable name of "Theorem", but the proof itself, however important and worthwhile, is merely the final, rational step of a process that began on grounds not necessarily logical.

Archimedes' book "On Method" is a good example of how this works: in order to find the volume of the sphere and the cylinder, and the ratio between the cylinder and the sphere inscribed in it, Archimedes used physical models and compared weights (under the reasonable assumption that if two bodies are made of the same material of the same density, their weights are proportional to their volumes). Another example is the development of Projective Geometry that started with the observations of Renaissance artists (like Piero della Francesca).

Ultimately Math is no different than Physics: it provides models. The difference is that Physics limits itself to models of the physical world, while Math can provide models for a variety of other things as well (like economic models). In some sense Physics is simply applied Math, applied to the physical world.

When you consider Math in itself, it has essentially no meaning, and it becomes meaningful only in so far you have a model in the real world for your mathematical system. At least that's what I think. Platonists would probably disagree.

What would be good after Lang? Just looking up "naive set theory", and "propositional logic"?

Don't listen to the arrogant folks.

Just real Morris Kline. He makes it understandable, digestible, and gives it to you in bite-sized pieces.

Far better than the hordes of the speed-talking, quipping mathematicians you're probably used to.

Are you serious? Most pure mathematicians I know can't fucking solve a HS level mechanics problem and they just hide it behind "it's an application of math" . It's obvious modern mathematician are only trained ina a niche field which they don't dare to jump out.

Read history of math to better understand how math came to be. Also, start doing research on your own. Math is obviously much more than just definition-lema-theorem.

This

Pseudo-intellectualism 101

>""""pure"""" mathematicians are not proficient at numerical methods
Well, color me surprised. I'm sure many condensed matter physicists are brilliant at category theory and algebraic topology. Also your edgy overstatement is hardly warranted - any decent math grad can learn which way to jerk the lagrangian within a week or two.
>niche field which they don't dare to jump out
Absolute majority of maths in modern physics was created by mathematicians. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Go play in the meme thread, bubba.

As an engineer and a devout mathementician this book isn't pseudo in anyway. The stories with Achilles and the Tortoise are meant to be entertaining. Read into the book more and, if you know anything about vector calculas e.g. matrices and the science of music, you'll find that Gödel's incompleteness theorem actually stand for something.

>Implying calculus was greated by physicist
>Implying vector calculus,linear algebra and PDE were put forward by many famous physicists
>Implying many problems in physics haven't spawned many areas of research in math
>Implying solving mechanics problems has anything to do with numerical methods
>implying physicists aren't good at algebraic topology
>Implying playing with Lagrangians gives any insight into analytical mechanics
Your ignorance of the field is astounding. Sad!

Wasn't, weren't *

If you knew anything about Gödels incompleteness theorems then you would know that it has nothing at all to do with vector calculus or linear algebra. In fact, the book doesn't give any mathematical insight to the theorems whatsoever, which puts you, the reader, in a disadvantage.

I find it funny you assumed so little of my knowledge of mathematics to think that you knowing about vector calculus and matrices would somehow impress me or other anons.

For humoring me, I'll leave you this book if you want to acquire a real understanding of mathematical logic and the 20th century formalism:

Stephen Cole Kleene, Introduction to Metamathematics

>genius polymath is ""a physicist""
>before physics emerged from natphil
>all polymaths who contributed to physics are primarily physicists
>math created for the needs of physics by mathematicians is an achievement of physics
>all physicists are good or capable in algebraic topology
>analytical mechanics isn't literally just a subset of applied math methods and requires arcane mystical inaccessible knowledge to secretly be imparted by the elders of physics faculties unto students per rectum
embarassing contrarianism desu

>it has nothing at all to do with vector calculus or linear algebra
Whomst'd've are you replying to?
>an pop-sci book concerned with intelligence and creative patterns in different spheres of knowledge is bad because it's not a book about mathematics
Consider suicide.

>book that tries to condense mathematical and musical intelligence into an accessible format
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA

Pro-tip: read the book before ebic memeing.

Well, every academic was sort of a polymath back in the day, but Im categorizing by their contribution to each field which is pretty sensible. And yea, math created for the need of physics many times comes from physicists themselves or applied mathematicians. Most pure mathematicians I know don't enter this sort of territory. Mathematicians obviously have given a much higher number of tools, but it's difficult to get inspiration of new interesting fields without much motivation behind it, and my point was that many fields in math just exist because there were physicists trying to answer a question. It goes both ways, but you can't deny the massive influence phyisical problems have on mathematics and their development is heavily influenced by physicists. A good example is dynamicl systems which grew out of the study of celestial bodies.

Also, you think everything is a subset of your field just because you literally lack knowledge and experience in physics. Just open a textbook, read the definitions and see if it's quite literally what you describe. If it was just abother math problem, why would we need physicists? Technicians can run labs so there isn't an excuse.

>mumph my lecturer never mentioned Gödel in my lessons
>Gödel had nothing to do with vector calc/matrices
Kill yourself
If you were as much a profound mathematician as you were then you'd know the origin of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and not be so stupid to say it has nothing to do with the rest of mathematics, especially infinitely defined spacial dimensions in theoretical physics and control system i.e. Matrices

I don't know why you keep insisting on talking about the specifics of work in pure mathematics and extrapolating them onto all mathematicians. Nowhere before your posts was pure maths even mentioned. Also nowhere was it said that physicists are "unneeded" or physics is a bad field. Trace the reply chain back and you'll see - the only point made was that in my opinion mathematical education (at least at undergrad level) gives one a more universally applicable generalistic set of tools, while physics is obviously more concerned with specifics of the physical(sic!) universe. This wasn't meant to be an attack on physics or a dick measuring contest between disciplines, so don't feel insulted.

And I challenged that notion considering how mathematicians are terrible at solving basic mechanics problems which is something I would consider necessary to understand the underlying principles of our world. You also said math lets you tap into the underlying principles of natural sciences which is also something that I challenged. You were referring to the world, not applicability of skills, read
again. And I sound mad because the amount of retarded mathematicians who actually think their subject is in some sense above all of stem is astounding and it seriously leads to academically lazy people. For some reason many of you think it's impressive to learn topology or analysis as If no other major has to deal with those concepts. Ur a fagget.

>mathematicians are terrible at solving basic mechanics problems
[citation needed] Your hearsay and "those three guys i kind know" are not representative of anything. Also, thanks for reminding me that your retarded claim again was concerning pure mathematicians and extrapolated onto all. Not to mention it was "high school mechanical problems", which is apparently analytical mechanics.
>math lets you tap into the underlying principles of natural sciences which is also something that I challenged
You didn't. You just uttered something as phenomenally retarded as "mathematics is a niche field". Also never presented any arguments, which is understandable considering there aren't any and only a contrarian autist would deny that math students have more math knowledge than physicists or that broader math knowledge allows for a easier entry into a larger spectrum of applications.
>You were referring to the world
Precisely. Physicist would have deeper understanding of material universe, no doubt. Mathematician a broader understanding of the world in general as he is accustomed to a wider set of mathematics used in other disciplines.
>the amount of retarded mathematicians who actually think their subject is in some sense above all of stem
Spend less time on Veeky Forums, I guess. Unless you're constantly rubbing shoulders with freshmen I don't see how you'd meet particularly many people of that type.
>For some reason many of you think it's impressive to learn topology or analysis
So stop hanging out with math undergrads?

There's no reason to be buttblasted. I realize my 300k a year anywhere in the world is a thing to envy, but I'm here autistically arguing with you anyways, so who cares.

A symbol is part of the thing it represents in so far as it represents it. That's why we call it a "symbol" as in "symbiosis."
When think of the symbol 'A' you recognize the spoken A. And likewise when you think of the spoken A you also see the symbol. The symbol and the thing symbolized are two reference points of meaning, defined in terms of one another. Like the foci of an ellipse.
Mathematics is concerned with particulars, meaning it knows things as they are in relation to other things. Hence mathematics is heavily formalized and abstracted from matter, because then the relations of things can be adjudicated more easily within a logical framework modeled after some physical system.
Philosophy on the other hand typically deals in universals, proceeding from sense and experience rather than a formal representation. To know something as it is -in itself- is to become the thing known through the protraction of the intellect.
This kind of unconditional knowledge is referred to as the notion of knowledge via connaturality or inclination.

>To know something as it is -in itself- is to become the thing known through the protraction of the intellect.
rationalists still believe this in 2017

perhaps one day you will stop relying on your ''''''intellect''''''', ie imagination, to know things instead of believing you do something radically different form mathematicians.

How pedestrian.

I'm in the very same situation. I just came to think that mathematics is useless. Not that there aren't application for it, but the mathematics that is TODAY a matter of research is useless for TODAY. "But it will be useful in the future" my colleagues say, I have never been able to hold such faith, and even if it happens to be true, the money used to fund mathematics would be better used funding research in medicine or biology.

You sound like you have an idea that all maths developed today is category theory and other pure memery. There's plenty of exciting reality-grounded research in applied math. Hell, you don't have to look far - basically all of the computer science proper are applied mathematicians.
>the money used to fund mathematics would be better used funding research in medicine or biology
This is such a naive myopic statement I can't even. I'm only going to assume again that you think all math research is pure math research.

>I wish I was good at math
Study more.
Maths can be taught like anything
Find a textbook that teaches what you want.
Read it and do questions.
Actually engage with the material and make sure you understand it.
I recommend "Mathematical Thinking: Problem-Solving and Proofs"

>just a symbol-game
Everything in life is just some form of "game"
Symbols games are just as "meaningful" as anything else

Yes, I am thinking mostly about pure math.
Applied mathematics is almost-always interdisciplinary so I don't consider it to be excluded by my examples. Funding research in medicine or biology could very well be money to fund projects in mathematics applied to biology.
I guess that when I entered college I wanted to do math for mathematics, and have change my mind middleway that should be funding in the light of being a tool rather than something independent of everything else.

It's terribly obvious you are undergrad.

Thanks, my MSc diploma seems to think otherwise, though.

Pure math doesn't receive a particularly large amount of funding and don't see why you would single it out. There's a sea of subjects in humanities and social sciences that have very limited to no applicability, yet they are still funded. I don't think this reductionist pragmatism is a good approach to anything really. Otherwise we might just as well question the funding of art initiatives, supporting national monuments, museums and theaters or imbuing any products with qualities beyond bare bones functional minimum.

I am a Platonist and I disagree.