>I do math because it's beautiful
>>7643505
/sci/ in a nutshell
now piss off
>>7643505
Who are you quoting?
What's wrong with that, OP?
>>7643505
I do math because the smug feeling I get when people ask me what I'm doing and I say "maths" and they say "oh my! i can't do anything past 1+1 x)" validates the years I've spent trudging through high level maths as a dumbfuck.
What's wrong with that though? Learning the most basic properties of our reality is pretty cool.
>>7643559
*tips fedora*
>>7643561
What the fuck do fedoras/atheism have to do with mathematics?
>>7643505
Just like your sister tbn
>>7643570
I think OP is simply retarded
>i post le poorly groomed hat man to project my own insecurity onto perspectives i don't agree with
>i accuse other people of being socially maladjusted when i am spamming stale memes on a Botswanian Typesetting trade journal at 3 AM on a saturday
nice life faggot op
>>7643570
Fedoras are euphoric
Mathematicians are euphoric
I literally trashed a maths book once because it was full of euphoric annoying cringe bullshit like "it is supercilliously advantageous to entertain the notion of the arcane elegance"
>>7643575
>It's 3am everywhere
American education everyone
>>7643505
I think math is obnoxious and in the way.
>>7643559
>What's wrong with that though? Learning the most basic properties of our reality is pretty cool.
>mathematics
>our reality
>>7643559
Statements like this are what put a good deal of people off mathematics. It's myopic and the sense of certainty ascribed is completely banal.
To me, it's not beautiful unless it has an application(direct or inderect)
Lol at these plebs
The idea math is representative of some invisible universal structure is an illusion. Because you are unable to visualize anything above multiplication, you think complicated results are pure magic.
>>7643672
>>7643672
>Because you are unable to visualize anything above multiplication
So much self reflection. If you can't even visualize differentiation and integration you're a fucking potato. Retard.
i fucking love you guys
>>7643672
This. Anyone awed by maths doesn't really understand it.
>>7643702
I don't believe math is indicative of any natural truth or anything. It's just logical consequences of the axioms. These can still surprise you though.
>>7643655
Wasted dubs. I think people are obnoxious and too often in the way of what really suits or is good for them. At least the math will work pretty much the same way tomorrow. At least I can have a better and lengthier conversation about math
than what getting wasted was like, or how work is shit because nothing I do there is of interest to me, or how I am so empathetic because I volunteer for social services.
Yet I consider interaction with other individuals crucial (irregardless of how much of the aforementioned stuff superceded their grasp of science) so that I have at least the most basic understanding of what's going on around me for which reason.
Provided it is not "why need math tho", what's your excuse for discarding it?
>>7643505
I do maths because I have to but it can be beautiful
>>7643720
Im majoring in math and still i picture you exactly like the pic OP posted.
>Not a math student
Out of all the STEM major-students that I've encountered (Applied Physics, Bio-engineering, Maths, Electrical Engineering, Computer science). imo Maths are one of the more normal people. They actually have the highest female rate too.
Rather AP students are more enlighted neckbeardish. Either that or their very childish and immature. Lanpartying during breaks, still cloths that their mom bought them and stuff.
Electrical Engineering students are by far the most anti-social students.
Computer scientists never seem to have left the 90's (dragon t-shirs, coconut haircuts)
Bio-engineers are meh (biology makes them relatively social, but their courses take up too much time which drains their personality throughout the years).
>Study at technical university
>live in another city that is inhabited by normal people
>>7643769
You Delft by any chance? This sounds exactly like my university
>>7643720
I don't discard it entirely, but I do think people need to know its place and refrain from confusing the mathematics with reality, or with the whole. For example, if I'm reading a textbook on rf circuit design, I don't want to be given a bunch of fucking equations to plug shit into and say "yay it spat out the answer!" I want to know the mechanics of what is occurring. Why does the material behave this way. What elements are involved in these processes? Etc. And that doesn't happen. A textbook, or a course, that affords people to derive that equation themselves? Not only is it uncommon, no one seems to give a shit.
Mathematics is strictly a thing of utility as far as I'm concerned. If you don't need it, if it isn't useful, it shouldn't be present. In fact, the ideal at all times should be to strip it out and see what's really happening in a way that wasn't derived from an equation. I'm mostly an experimentalist. Portraying the world through the lens of mathematics is a garbage way to teach, and it's a garbage way to learn. People are apt to come out of it not really knowing shit about anything. You might even say the illusion of knowledges leads them to know less than when they started. Mathematics is cancerous.
And I'm sick of it. It's very difficult for me to learn what I really want to know because I have all this bullshit in the way along with people that delude themselves into believing it's adequate.
[Continued. Just because it's rare someone both gets a strong opinion and what it stems from.]
>>7643801
For backstory, I'm probably not a very uncommon case. Mathematics began to unravel for me around the point when improperly taught order of operations began to return results I was told were "incorrect". Naturally for these edge cases I believed I was incorrect and some aspect of the system was broken. Couple that with growing philosophical issues, such as the idea of quantities to begin with.
"The universe itself is math!"
But is it? If I can see an object on a macro scale as being one whole, but reduce it to being composed of parts that themselves are wholes, where does this end? Does it end?
Then the rampant utterly unacceptable abuses of probability theory and statistics. No, you're not more safe in a plane than driving. No, you're not being completely tricked by bad risk assessment heuristics that prefer a sensation of direct control. Those tendencies exist for a reason.
"0.9 repeating = 1. You must remember that this is a flaw with the notation."
No, it's quantization error waiting to happen and slip through undetected. If the notation is not able to precisely and cleanly handle the results of the underlying logic, fix it.
I didn't have anyone to meaningfully interface with me, so I thought it was an arbitrarily hacked together mess that didn't seem to properly describe anything half the time. So despite its utility, I ditched it at algebra. Naturally developed heuristics that made the generation of novel systems to either layer around numerical calculations, or in a more standalone sense, fluid and easy to carry over.
Now that I'm in my twenties, I can better see both the very valid uses of math, and its problems. I'm eventually going to learn something beyond base algebra. Math doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to work predictably and well enough. Which I suppose it accomplishes. I'm better equipped to process and strip other people's personal bullshit and actually be willing to see through to the core of it.
>>7643805
> Naturally for these edge cases I believed I was incorrect
I believed I was *correct
>>7643769
Can't say that I've encountered any math majors though, probably because they never leave their moms basement.
>>7643702
How do you explain the existence of natural numbers/lines/any primitive (primitive means that it should be understood intuitively only) concept in mathematics if not by them being properties of the Universe? How can you explain the effectiveness math has in describing the world? How do you know that logic works if not by empirical evidence?
Mathematics IS part of the structure of the Universe and you're a retard.
>>7643653
When did it become trendy to replace words that anyone can understand with obscure words taken right from the author's thesaurus? Cringeworthy.
![banana[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/jxk8rpa.jpg "banana[1].jpg")
>>7643950
>>7643950
>How do you explain the existence of natural numbers/lines/any primitive (primitive means that it should be understood intuitively only) concept in mathematics if not by them being properties of the Universe? How can you explain the effectiveness math has in describing the world? How do you know that logic works if not by empirical evidence?
>Mathematics IS part of the structure of the Universe and you're a retard.
i swear i've seen this argument before
>>7643666
Not that guy but
1) "Banal" is the single most pretentious word in the English language. Therefore.
2) The first person who seriously invokes the word "banal" in any given argumentative or rhetorical context, /by the simple fact of using the word itself/, automatically loses whatever argument they were engaged in by default.
The above actual argument involved in the one-two post exchange above isn't what matters. What matters is, Satan broke first, and used the b-word. Satan automatically loses his aesthetic argument as a result, QED.
>>7643559
>the most basic properties of our reality is pretty cool.
thats not what math is tho. math is a tool that we can use to model our reality.
>mfw spergs think math was discovered and not invented
dumb fucks, why is math convention opposite physical reality half the time then?
>>7643769
I've met hotties majoring in Math. But engineering is always filled with land demons who shake the building everytime they move. One of the hottest chicks I've met was an applied math major who worked out as a dancer. Not stripping. Had the best tasting pussy I've eaten in my life.
>>7645000
>I've met hotties majoring in Math.
you mean THOTs that want to teach middle schoolers? yeah thats what your shit major is
>>7645002
She actually got her Math PhD from MIT and works as a computer scientists on machine learning for google. Now go back to your dated views that only ugly chicks are smart. Hot, smart women often scare off a lot of men. Easy way for me to get with them.
>>7645008
>Now go back to your dated views that only ugly chicks are smart
your one exeption to the rule doesnt change the fact that most women in math are doing it to become teachers. i've actually not met one that wasnt doing that. i know chicks doing their phd in nuclear engineering and in high energy density phys, that doesnt change the fact that most women dont
>>7644979
Okay.
>>7643653
>i literally trashed a maths book once because it was full of euphoric annoying cringe bullshit
>Instead of selling it or giving it to charity, I destroyed a book i paid good money for because it said something that reminded me of an internet meme featuring an overweight man I saw on a Guyanese TIG-Welding BBS
no anon, you are the cringe.
>>7645008
>Hot, smart women often scare off a lot of men. Easy way for me to get with them.
>the rotten yet delicious-looking food at the bottom of the dumpster often scares off a lot of people. Easy way for me to eat, though.
>>7644998
Mankind could never "invent" such perfection. Whole mathematics is based on small set of axioms. Do you think it wouldn't all break down if it was human invented.
>>7645228
There is no actual difference between invention and discovery.
The delineation that's usually drawn is arbitrary. "If it's already here without me, and I find it, and could still be without me, it's discovered. If I made it it from what I presumably discovered, it's invented." But there are myriad ways that breaks down.
All invention is just discovering some general state the universe affords. In the context of invention / discovery, mathematics is more accurately both and neither.
>>7643505
>>7645228
it was invented, and it hasnt broken down thus far. we literally make up the rules, and add shit based on those rules we make up. go sperg out somewhere else
>>7644128
Argument by intimidation
>>7643672
Wow, integrals are sure impossible to visualize.
>>7643559
>our reality
Sure bro, I live in a n-dimensional space.
>>7643672
I have a hard time visualizing the derivative and integrals of log functions, but thats about it.
>>7643702
Math feels good to me. It feels good for a lot of people because deeper understanding makes them feel complete.
>>7646297
>Thinking the only integrals are over continuous functions in real space in less than 2 dimentions
>>7646377
come on though, lots of other integrals can be visualized
>>7646390
Just as many can't though.
>>7646377
When i try to take the integral of a discontinuous function, i get 0 or not defined (inf).
Whats the deal?
>>7646421
Reimann integration is perfectly well defined for a discontinuous functions where the set of discontinuities has lebesgue measure 0.
>>7643575
>Botswanian Typesetting trade board
>>7646457
Cool appreciate it. Im in calc 1 but its such a breeze im just teaching myself integration
>>7646421
>>7646602
There are fare more general types of integration and differentiation but since i cant really picture what an element of the convex hull of a function in infinite dimensional spaces looks like I pretty much still visualize integration as the "area under the graph" of a more or less smooth function - if I try to visualize at all.
