>Math is a language!
>Music is math
the syllogism doesn't add up.
>>7583075
well they have things in common
>>7583077
syllogism
>:2
>>7583059
Math is the language of universe you cucknipple
>>7583059
>sperglord can't tolerate harmless analogy
Guys, how do I say. "Refrigerator" in math? This is important.
>>7583059
Yeah, it's nothing more than a language.
Problem ?
>>7583075
BoC fan?
Un jeu de caracteres
>>7583125
"Let f: English \longrightarrow Mathematics be a continuous function. To show that it is bijective, we simply need to find its inverse.
After that, we trivially compute f(Refrigerator).
Exercise left to the reader.
Math exists independently of notation
>>7583222
>Math exists independently of notation
Then, it what form does it exists ?
>>7583168
Assuming first statement is true, then f(Refrigerator) should contain variables milk, eggs, left over pizza.
One can simplify this with the EAT method as developed by that college student, this eliminates the left over pizza without the using more complex methods like COOKING. Then use the ...
... Now solve for milk in liters, then convent to gallons to get the proper answer.
This also assumes you can derive the correct order sequence for the egg and chicken, as they are not commutative.
>>7583245
PURE ENERGY!!!
>>7583168
>Exercise left to the reader.
>>7583059
depends on your definition of language.
>>7583272
And of mathematics
>>7583256
Shut the fuck up you unfunny prick.
>>7583279
And the definition of the words in your definition.
>>7583285
This tbh
aids is common flu
>>7583168
So refrigerator in math is pronounced refrigerator?
>>7583125
> there is no word for "awkward" in spanish
> therefore spanish is not a language
>>7583333
A language's purpose is to describe events in which it's culture can observe or at least imagine. Why would there be a word for something that doesn't exist? For instance, let us say that dogs could speak English and you told them to fetch the red ball. Dogs don't see the color 'red', therefore it wouldn't exist in their language. A dog wouldn't know how to respond to you at all. It sees various shades of grey. "Red" simply doesn't exist to it, because not only is it not important, but it's not a reality whatsoever. That's why refrigerator doesn't exist in mathematics. It's not a reality that needs to be conveyed.
>>7583348
The purpose of math is to describe reality, though.
I'd argue that to that degree, math is simply a syntax forlanguage rather than a language itself.
>>7583075
>not liking boards of canada
god tier study music imo
>>7583348
Dogs don't have black/white/gray vision you fucking uneducated faggot
>>7583394
Math is an inherent property of reality.
>>7583411
That's kinda besides the point isn't it? They're still partially color blind.
>>7583419
No it's not. Numbers are the direct result of conscious observers constructing closed systems for the sake of isolating variables.
Numbers, like other closed systems, do not exist in any real sense.
>>7583427
Math isn't numbers. Numbers are just a way of describing math.
>>7583436
Define math then
>>7583436
I still maintain that mathematics is am abstraction of reality rather than an inherent property of reality.
Reality would exist regardless of whether math did. Math is a human creation.
>>7583446
>Math is a human creation.
The symbols and the mathematical language are a human creation. But the underlying logic and structure being described is not.
If we were to meet some alien civilization from a distant galaxy, their math would be identical to ours, no matter what base, symbols, or syntax they use.
>>7583458
>But the underlying logic and structure being described is not.
I literally just explained to you that it is.
Math, and numbers by proxy, is the construction of closed systems by conscious observers for the sake of isolating variables. Math, like closed systems, is not representative of reality, it is simply representative of how we observe it.
You might be able to argue that math is inherent to consciousness, but not reality itself.
>>7583471
>math is inherent to consciousness, but not reality itself.
What the fuck does that even mean?
The ratio of a circles diameter to its circumference is the same no matter what language you describe it.
Math is not an artificial construct.
>>7583477
Circles do not exist in nature.
Everything we describe as circular is merely an approximation of the concept. Roundness exists. Circularity does not. Circles are a human construct.
>>7583168
Wow, I didn't think it was possible for one joke to reveal how incompetent you are at math, but here I am stupefied.
>translate that into Math bitches
>"Let f be continuous function..."
>only care if it's bijective
>computation trivial
>leaving exercise to the reader instead of implicitly implying it's below you by actually hinting there's something more to verify
>>7583484
That hardly refutes the point.
Any independently derived systems of math would always describe the same thing.
Language is a tool used to communicate various descriptions, observations, etc.
So doesnt mathematics also serve as a tool to communicate various descriptions, observations, etc...?
>>7583471
Pi would be rational in a base pi number system.
>>7583488
The thresholds for determining an object's shape would still vary though.
Also, you've just admitted yourself that systems of math are derived from reality rather than being inherent. Isn't that contradictory?
>>7583471
Yes, the essence of counting numbers and physical interraction have always existed, we just use symbols and constructed systems to describe them.
>>7583501
>the essence of counting numbers and physical interraction have always existed
Not prior to consciousness. Numbers simple describe how we observe.
>>7583500
You are literally arguing semantics.
You say there is an inherent logic to reality which we describe with math.
I say that math is the inherent logic, and we describe it with our constructed mathematical language.
>>7583510
>You are literally arguing semantics
I'm arguing semantics because this is a really important distinction to be made.
Claiming that math is inherent to reality as opposed to human observation is a massive metaphysical claim to make.
>>7583486
>Sperglord can't take an innocent math joke
>>7583222
>Math exists independently of notation
Not really.
That we can talk about something and reason about it, doesn't mean it exists. Take for instance the following: second item in an empty list, god, free will, sun made of ice, a real number between .9recurring and 1, a time before the universe existed, my yacht.
>>7583521
>is a massive metaphysical claim to make.
No it's not.
It doesn't matter at all really. You are just calling two things by different names.
It makes no actual difference, other than to cause confusion in arguments like this thread.
>>7583510
This guy >>7583521
The world is; Your narrative of the world is not.
The world is a big place that is always changing. You only see a little bit at a time. So you use your memory and the Narrative process to sew the parts together into a coherent story.
The brain is a sense organ that senses itself. This is what puts in motion the “feeling” of existence. There is a sensory loop that “holds static” some input from the world that is showing change. The brain then statically senses this loop: the change becomes a feeling.
You do this over and over, and if the world has any patterns in it, the brain will find them.
But the story isn't real. You equivocate existence when you apply it to things with no materialism.
A narrative either reflects the world or it doesn't, but it is never real.
Logic is just the way the world trained your brain. No two objects can occupy the same space at the same time; no object can be in two places at once; space is invariant to direction; etc.
If you were trained in a different world, your brain would come up with things different than counting or deduction or induction...
>>7583508
The potential for numerical values to be conciously observed before consciousness, so they did exist before conscious observation.
Its like saying "we cant say that the earth was the third planet from the sun before humans existed because numbers didnt exist then. "
>>7583593
Without definitions, the concept of planets doesn't exist.
It's not until humans existed that certain objects were considered significant, and that s "3rd" one of these could be recognized.
This isn't a statement that earth didn't exist. It's that the concept of earth didn't exist, and that the identification of a 3rd planet hinged on this concepts existence.
The nature of the universe does not hinge on mathematics; simply our comprehension of it.
just read this u cucks
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
>>7583532
>Logic is just the way the world trained your brain.
Perhaps it's the opposite.
Perhaps the way we see the world is biased by a kind of innate, unconscious logic.
>>7583132
Yes
>>7583222
So does language.
>>7583222
Define notation .
>>7583667
https://youtu.be/vA2cdHLKYB8
The potential for it to exist means it exists and has existed, as soon as we define it.
Yes, they existed. The video is made to be understood by a 6th grader so its a bit simplified, but its genuine.
>>7583748
Anon, i can't give you a succinct response to a 10 minute video in just 1500 characters.
At the very least, you need to meet me half way and summarize the points you think are important so i can address them accordingly. Otherwise, this discussion is pointless.
>>7583765
Sorry to sound a bit odd but I sorta found it cute how you called me anon
>>7583802
That's fine. When I call people anon, it's usually because I'm trying to be cute.
>>7583765
Simple. The potential for something to exist before observation means that it exists.
So, counting numbers represented something that existed before conscious observation. Same with formulas that describe physical systems. Although our system is arbitrary, something like the speed of light has been the same value, we just use units and numbers to describe it.
>>7584005
But what creates the distinction of what items are relevant within a given set?
The relevancy of items within a set is completely determined by the conscious observer. Without a conscious observer, there is nothing to determine whether the 24 "things"being referred to are dinosaurs,trees, rocks, or a combination of all those things. Without something to recognize the distinctions between these items and their surroundings, the set itself does not exist. The definition of the set completely hinges on the observer. Without an observer, there can be no set.
I would argue, though, that dinosaurs are capable of making these distinctions and so math is much older than humanity. But i have trouble seeing math as being older than life itself.
>>7584005
>Simple. The potential for something to exist before observation means that it exists.
no, you presuppose that there is a reality, there is a you, and that reality is different from you.
your imagination is running wild...
>>7583394
You're a fool. You don't just say refrigerator, you project it into a grid and describe it using functions that define its shape. You could say refrigerator in math, but it wouldn't be recognizable unless you graphed it you fool. It's still describable, just because you can't read it, doesn't mean it's not possible.
>>7584465
That's stupid.
What kind of a language makes you draw an entire refrigerator every time you want to convert the term? It's like you've come up with a retarded version of pictography.
Math is just a commutative language, is it not?
>>7584465
>You're a fool
>you fool
Are you a superhero movie villain? The fucks with all your "fool"s?
math is a physical substance, the most infinitesimal particle of matter and energy
>>7583328
>awkward
incomodo... A ver si aprende algo maricón.
>>7583168
How the fuck are you writing this?
>>7584053
I agree, math isnt older than life itself, but the properties we describe using math did exist before life. Although nothing could be counted before life, it was still countable.
Best example is the cosmic background radiation. Even though it was never thought to exist in the slightest way two thousand years ago didnt mean it didnt exist before life observed it.
>>7583497
No, it wouldn't, even though I'm not sure how you could have a base that isn't an integer. Anyway
> a rational number is any number that can be expressed as the quotient or fraction p/q of two integers, p and q, with the denominator q not equal to zero.
There is no number system in which pi fits this definition.
>tfw this post is over 24 hours old
>the person who wrote it will probably never read my reply
>I'm typing it anyway because I have nothing better to do
>>7584452
But that is the truth. Things humanity has never thought of still exist in the universe, its one of the reasons we can call the future "the great unknown." But the potential for their existance is real, so for know, they are real.
>>7586084
I was just being goofy anyway =3
>>7584753
Heard of Ithkuil? No one said a language had to be intuitive. Given you know how a line works and given you know how to manipulate lines on a graph, in either 2 or 3 dimensions, you can draw a fridge. Computers do it all the time.
>>7584949
Way to address the argument. I guess even when one spells everything right, you gotta point out some nonsensical terms instead of listening to the point.
>>7585827
While incomodo does contain some aspects of awkward in it, I feel like incomodo would translate to uncomfortable better than awkward. I would say "raro" or "extrano" which could translate to weird or rare as well, but as with any language, I suppose it depends on context.
>>7583059
Pretty sure 1+1=2 is a universal law
>>7586261
Pretty sure you don't know the meaning of "law"
>>7586080
>Even though it was never thought to exist in the slightest way two thousand years ago didnt mean it didnt exist before life observed it.
You're comparing abstract objects to physical objects. Just because an abstract concept can be applied to situations prior to its conception, that doesn't inherently mean it existed at that point in time. The same doesn't apply to physical objects. Physical objects either are or they aren't. Potentiality doesn't apply to them in any real sense.
Background radiation ia a real object. Math is abstract. The latter must be concieved to exist while the former does not.
>>7586272
Where in this universe does 1+1 not equal 2?
>>7586310
Depends on the objects and units of measurement.
One small icecream plus one small icecream equals one large icecream.
It's only by convention that we regard something like 1+1=1 as being wrong and adapt the unit of measurement to accommodate that.
You've also got cases where 360+360=0. Again, we reject this by convention and change the unit of measurement.
>>7583348
>or at least imagine
>something that doesnt exist
If dogs see everything in various shades of gray, then they can still use the word red to describe the gray corresponding to the red wavelength.
A fridge can be described mathematically you cockgobbler. All you need is a set of coordinates in a 3d grid. Then you need a set of designated point types for the molecules used in the fridge.
Given that information, if you were smart enough, you could visualize the object and know its purpose.
>>7583471
Objective reality exists because we observe it. If it didn't exist, how would we have fabricated it? Our perception of reality is an entirely different entity than reality itself.
Math is a description of the laws of our perception of reality and we could not describe something that did not exist to some degree. Just because its a narrow scope doesn't mean those interactions don't happen at all.
>>7583495
This nigga correct. Its that fucking simple. Whether or not it accurately describes reality is besides the point. It is still a medium for passing data to another, and even if it were wrong you would still have communicated that error.
Here we have people getting all meta about the definition of language. Jesus christ.
>>7583222
You would really have to prove that the shapes and curves that we embedded into language as notation were determined mathematically, or that the relationship was at least observed freely in nature somehow. I'm pretty sure Math didn't make itself apparent to us through a Mathematical Neon Sign that read "MATH HERE".
Math is our codified effort at differentiating the perception of something to the figurative qualities that describe that thing using the meter that other sense could possibly use. Eyes see a wave on paper as 'S', for the sake of a simple wave, and describe it as a squiggly line but ears sense these waves as they naturally are and we take them in as sound. We only created a relationship between the two using the manner of sound as it is reflected on matter. Closer observation let us look at the matter's disposition and we were able to mathematically describe that disposition and relay to it to paper where we discovered the 'S' wave shape for our eyes to use in inference.
Then we scaled that process a million different ways to describe more complex relationships between sound and motion.
For example:
When you fap at night, your dad, mom, brother and sister hear the creak in the wall as press against your desk chair for maximum load travel time. They can't see you but the rate of the peaks in sound that they comprehend as a pulse in fappery is familiar to them because of their own fapping and that in turn helps them realize that you are the source. When they listen in for the point of derivation to that particular sound and then follow that point of derivation to the causal point they can suddenly hear the whole house moving and you lightly sobbing as you pull at your weiner to webms that make your computer use extremely uncommon algorithms. Suddenly they can hear the rhythm of the sex and they compare it to your fapping. They realize that there are three dicks in that room. What are you watching, anon?
It has syntax and semantics, so yes.
>>7586465
this indeed.
logics-mathematics is nothing but the process of abstraction and the manipulation of the abstract objects, resulting from the abstraction, according to rules of inferences that WE CHOOSE from our daily life.
I think that logic is the highest form of abstraction. mathematics is too applied.
>>7583495
Yeah but it communicates through a manner of logic that is not always commutative. The same equation could be describing a growth rate, or a separation of relevant points, a rational boundary, etc. It's too general to be a language in the same way that all conceived languages such as english, french, japanese, etc. can be. It refers through a syntax of diction that can refer to other languages but will not optimally refer the mind to the same aspects.
If this were so, one could easily say that every individual in their own biases carry their own natural language as it comes about in their unique experiences.
Math is a manner of phrasing, I think, and it helps to narrow the possibilities in a less subtle manner than the natural mind. So, it lends itself more as a conduit to understanding the observed within the bounds of language. It's a distinction of sorts, the way an adjective does, but it does not openly provide a pretense upon which one might initially tend to the information. It isn't telling you to tirelessly work, it is simply showing you what needs done and you've surmised that it is a lot.
Fuck I lost my track. Basically math is a way to compress the nature of language through a more direct approach rather than a logical one that people of the language create amongst each other in order to communicate.
So like language is the set theory.
And the math is the more discrete nature that exists between those sets. But it doesn't exist there as math. We called the means to relaying those relationships math, and that math is made up of a particular notation that we have differentiated from the rest of language in order to prevent a rhetorically subtle overlap in meaning and qualm.
>>7583348
A dog's lack of perception of the color red doesn't necessarily correlate to red being completely nonexistent to it. We can't see infra-red rays, but we can certainly acknowledge their existence.
>>7586518
Actually, neither "red" nor "infrared" would exist.
Instead, you'd have "infrayellow" which would encompass both spectrums.
"Red" as a color only exists because its a wavelength that's relevant to us (specifically to our eyes). Without that relevancy, the color ceases to exist even if the wavelength itself is still tangible.
>>7583532
I concur
>>7586310
cayley's table
>>7586310
the disutility of 2 continuous hours of work isn't necessarily the same as the sum of the disutility of 2 different hours of work at different times.
![2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5qjcrAY.jpg "2[1].jpg")