How can STEM students even compete?
I can't believe I took the time to read that
He sounds kind of like Steven Wolfram.
>>7972518
Can you elaborate
I've seen Wolf get a lot of hate on here but never known why
He should now do 0.(9) != 1
>>7972237
fucking hell, he can't even understand primary school level maths
this makes me sad
poor deluded old man
did he say that sqrt 2 is 2?
>>7972588
yes, yes he did. someone send him a calculator and destroy entire world view
what does he think the square root of 1 is? i?
>>7972608
Must be -i.
>Engineering student
Can't say I didn't expect that
>>7972633
kek.
let's be real this nigger doesn't know one scrap about imaginary numbers.
>>7972237
>can't do basic math
>can't even understand basic concepts of math
>I'm not retarded the rest of the world is retarded
>>7972237
>"One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be."
>>7972237
Goddamn what a crackpot.
>>7972237
A perfect example of the kind of narcissism that's required to make it in Hollywood (or make it for a little bit then fall short entirely, in Terrence's case).
Rather than admit his mistake and that he's retarded for saying 1x1 = 2 on his first ever collegiate math exam, "MATH 001: pre-algebra for engineers," he decided to create a new branch of mathematics which uses cut up bits of wire and plastic as proof that the square root of two is one... instead of "two."
Dude's got a prime number of chromosomes, it seems.
>>7972588
No he says sqrt(4) =2,
So he says why isnt sqrt(2) = 2? why isnt it rational?
it isnt like he doesnt know what irrational/rational numbers are, he want to design a way of thinking about maths such that there arent irrational numbers
>t. Negroid mathematician
>>7972237
>>7972938
Don't be such a pleb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blackwell
Do you have a theorem named after you? Do you think you'd be good enough for von Neumann to give you the time of day?
How embarrassing.
ayy lmao
also what happened to the layout of /sci/
I’ve been gone for a few weeks and now everything’s all different, but /p/ which i also tend to frequent is the same
>>7972551
Steve's the guy with his head up his own ass the furthest. He's competent and WolframAlpha is pretty good at what it does but the guy's very arrogant about his views on philosophy of mathematics. He's a dick
Kinda makes you wonder how he got into Pratt in the first place. Oh right, he's black, they get a free pass.
>>7973019
It was (is?) April 1st
>>7972551
As smart as he is, his arrogance exceeds his intelligence.
>>7972780
That's not what he said.
>so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be."
>>7972751
lol he "studied chem eng at Pratt but dropped out due to disagreements with his professors". I can see how that went:
>Howard: Why did I get 10% on my assignment?
>T.A.: Because you got 90%
>Howard: You don't understand math (and you're probably racist too).
>>7973092
>90% wrong
Fuck
>>7972237
>the laws of mathematics
wat
Looks like AnilDestruction got to the comments representing the best of 4chan
http://mashable.com/2015/09/14/terrence-howard-one-times-one/#BXnhINOk2Zqf
>>797303
fucking dying
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_geometry
>>7972678
So he's a typical /pol/tard?
>>7974322
> redditposting
back to >>>/r/eddit with your flat earths shitposter
>>7974325
> butthurt
>>7974327
back to your containment cesspool
>>>/r/eddit
Lel THIS is why it makes no fucking sense to teach engineers all the calculations and computations of analysis and call it "math" without making them sit there and do the fucking proofs like actual mathematicians would do.
>>7972518
Steven Wolfram was a fucking genius. This moron is literally trying to replace mathematics with pop-math and people not studying math are too stupid to tell the difference.
>>7974332
You're tears are delicious
>>7974334
...said the flat earther
>>7972237
>He manage to get all the way to college without understanding that 1x1=1
What the fuck? I've heard of the American education meme, but seriously.
>>7974335
> implying
>>7974338
> triggered
lol
>>7974341
I'm lost
>>7972780
>he wants to design a way of thinking about maths such that these aren't irrational numbers
WE FUCKING HAVE THAT ALREADY.
Again, people think arithmetic is set in stone and the "foundation" of math cause it's fairly intuitive, which is beyond retarded. The natural numbers are just a shorthand for objects which we can describe by ZFC. Build the other algebraic objects which we call rational ad irrational numbers from there and you get to the conclusion that the irrational numbers are defined as a set that contains the square root of 2. It's just a fucking word defined to include that value! If you don't like it, you can change the definition of "irrational" but the fucking idea stands because that's what it's fucking defined to be! Saying 1 x 1 doesn't equal 1 means he's redefined the entire foundation of mathematics and ZFC in a way that, if anyone is actually going to give him the time of day, is still consistent with all of mathematics. Which he hasn't, because we have proven that to be impossible.
>>7972641
Engineering students are fucking deluded into thinking that arithmetic is just an absolute truth cause it makes sense intuitively.
THAT'S the fucking problem with our mathematical education today, especially in college.
THE ONLY THING UNIVERSAL ABOUT MATH IS THE FACT THAT OBJECTS EXIST AND WE CAN GROUP THEM INTO SETS. THAT'S IT!
EVERYTHING ELSE IS A FUCKING HYPOTHETICAL ARGUMENT WITH NUMBERS AS A MEANINGLESS SHORTHAND FOR THESE OBJECTS.
>>7974336
THIS!
It is funny how nobody points this out even though it is probably the most mysterious part.
or is it?
The americans are the only ones to know.
>>7974347
Sets are gross
>>7974333
At least at UCLA engineers took the same calc, linear algebra, differential equations and (for me since I was electrical) complex analysis as math majors, proofs and all
>>7974420
I think most math majors don't even bother to understand what a natural number actually is or where it comes from.
Analysis is at least required, but even that usually starts with the integers as being intrinsic and then building the rationals and then constructing the reals from there.
Nobody tells them that a natural number is not arbitrary, but how it can be defined with set theory and everything. (or type theory and category theory if you want to take that route)
>>7974418
Sets are the foundations of everything in mathematics.
>>7974420
>UCLA math majors take shitty engineering classes and not a single math class
proof?
>>7974418
This. Categories are prettier. They have arrows.
>>7974475
http://www.seasoasa.ucla.edu/curric-15-16/31curelec-15.html
Sample four year plan for EEs - note they take math 31A/B, 32A/B, 33A/B (I also had to take Math 132 when I was there but I guess it's changed)
Here is the requirements for a math major at UCLA:
http://math.ucla.edu/ugrad/majors/math-major
The math courses are the same for the lower div prep for both majors
>>7974420
>>7974475
Okay, you were lying. Even if not intentionally.
1) You don't take the math linear algebra (MATH 115A/B) but the general linear algebra which everyone takes. This is not proof based. (The calc and calc-based diff eq classes are the same, general classes for engineers).
2) The complex analysis 132 class is watered down, and appropriately called "Complex Analysis with Applications". It's actually just complex calculus, not analysis. The math version (132H) actually requires analysis and so is proof-based.
>>7974496
>The math courses are the same for the lower div prep for both majors
That's because they're general ed classes, not math classes.
>>7974497
We did plenty of proofs in my 32 series w/ Chayes
>>7974502
What a "proof" means is very different for math majors and for engineers. You cannot prove things as important as the fundamental theorem of calculus without concepts of uniform continuity and compact sets, and you don't see these in calculus.
>>7974497
I don't know a single math major who took 132H; looking at the registrar, only 13 people took it last time it was offered (which is only once per year) and the math major is quite larger than that
>>7974505
Yeah I suppose so
If you were taking my original statements to mean that I did math nearly as rigorous as done by math majors then I probably phrased it wrongly (English is my third language so I don't always communicate well)
>>7974333
>without making them sit there and do the fucking proofs like actual mathematicians would do.
I've heard this many times, but I want some confirmation. Are there really some special math courses for engineers in America (I only heard it from American anons) that don't prove their theorems and only rote memorise them, or what? I just can't even imagine any discipline being taught like that. Can you even call a discipline math/physics if you can't prove theorems in it and the only thing you can do is copy/paste formulae?
>>7974505
Why would I prove the fundamental theorem of calculus in an engineering class like solid mechanics ? Thats for math class silly
>>7974517
if you're claiming there's an engineering program that does full proofs of all the used math, show it please. highly doubtful, you're probably wrong
>>7974517
Are you trying to argue that a math class is either rote memorization of formulae or some in-depth proof based course?
Usually in the lower div math courses I took (at UIUC) the professor gave limited proofs of concepts in class but they were not too in-depth and weren't very important overall for the class. Engineers USE math/physics developed by people focused in those fields to solve problems, they don't necessarily need to have that in depth of an understanding, usually just abstractions suffice
>>7974535
You proved everything in your math class down to principia mathematica, before starting with analysis?
>>7974502
>>7974500
>>7974505
This is why engineers still think of "1" and "2" as references to single or double objects. They are just abstractions of ZFC set theory in math, and that's it. Nothing in math "exists" in the real world, and this isn't something that hits most math majors, I think, until they take Topology and get their entire intuition turned on it's head, and that's something that's basically never taught to undergraduate engineers, ever.
Basically I'm saying engineers need to take a rigorous Topology course to begin to understand math, and none of them do.
>>7974549
But why would it need to be taught to them? Abstractions work for their purposes, there's literally no reason for them to study that in depth. Yes it leads to retardation like we see in the OP but who gives a shit? Is there anyone really taking him seriously outside of a few blogs/magazines?
>>7974541
No I agree that to solve problems you don't need to do proofs. My point is that people like the guy in the OP confuse the solving problems with actually knowing what kinds of objects they're working with and that we never actually teach the difference to engineers, or most math majors.
Hence they are to some degree limited by their intuition, which is great for solving real-world, physical problems, but it's silly for them to step in like in the OP and try to change something that doesn't jive with their intuition.
>>7974535
No, of course not. But still, it's not the first time I hear people talking as if engineering math courses almost fon't prove anything at all.
Or is it just anons exaggerating things too much?
>>7974554
I agree with you actually. Really.
>>7974558
Yeah but no one takes the dude in the OP seriously
He went to a literally who school that only has one Nobel laureate affiliated (and that was back in the 1930s!)
>>7974546
We started with the axioms of set theory and built N (both as ordinals and equivalence relations of cardinality), then Z as NxN/~, then Q as Frac(Z), then R with dedekind cuts and cauchy sequences. It was all self contained and very nice. We also introduced the axiom of choice and the various equivalences so we're comfortable with arguments invoking zorn's lemma and can prove them fully.
>>7974560
This is the perspective from a math major's point of view. If it seems weird to you then you aren't a math major. It's that simple
>>7974568
This, exactly.
Most math majors start with Rudin or someting similar though, who completely skips everything before Q, and I think that's a real shame that math majors don't get to see that first part (I don't know if they do all read about it on their own, but I know a lot of classes won't go into it).
This was spot on though.
>>7974568
What you didnt start with propositional logic (or whatever its called)?
So you don't prove every tool you use? Just the ones that are important to your work?
>>7974591
You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
For propositional logic, you still need sets. He started at exactly the same place any logician does because there is nothing more fundamentally possible than "things exist and we can group them into sets". He is proving every tool he uses, including every element of propositional logic used in mathematics.
There are other areas of logic, which are unrelated and unused by mathematics, but it isn't necessary for the kind of mathematics we're talking about here. It's just a different kind of logic.
Basically I'm saying that he starts at the very fundamentals logically, the same place as someone studying logic, and then builds up from there. there are "other paths" that a logician might use who is studying different kinds of logic, but as far as we're concerned with math based out of ZFC, there are no missing steps or unproven tools in what he said.
that's kind of the beauty of math and why a lot of people are drawn to it.
>>7974611
I think Im just getting the words wrong.
For the axiom:
> A set exists.
What does exists mean? What are its properties? Why is the inverse "for every" and such?
Whats that branch of mathematics called?
>>7974628
>what does it mean to exist
This is the end of the line, the bottom of the barrel, the beginning, for all math and logic.
You're getting metaphysical, and that's where we get off.
You cannot prove the there "is" existence or nonexistence in the general sense, you just have to accept it.
>what does exists mean
See above.
>what are its properties
We define them in terms of hypothetical statements. To question otherwise is to question the very idea of whether "logic" works at all. And if logic doesn't "work", then you've reached a kind of metaphysical contradiction and nobody can help you. So we have to assume that "logic works," that "rationality is true" and such.
>why is the inverse "for every" and such?
What? You are using the term "inverse" but I'm not sure you realize what it means. Be very precise because that question didn't make sense.
>What is that branch of mathematics called?
Mathematics is the aspect of logic that deals with quantities.
You are asking about aspects not of logic, but of metaphysics, which borders on religion.
To begin logic, you have to accept that a set exists.
>what is a set?
A collection of objects or lack thereof.
>what is an object
A thing
>what is a thing
something which exists
>What does it mean to exist
Back to metaphysics and religion.
That's really as simple as it gets. those are all the inherent properties of a "set". It is a "collection of things" and that's it. Everything else is proposed as a hypothetical axiom for the sake of making arguments with.
You follow?
>>7974640
wiki answered my question.
Its first order logic.
Im not asking if it works or not, but how it works.
Regardless, you've convinced me. Not much below sets...
>>7974640
>just have to accept it
Existence is axiomatic like that.
>>7972975
>David_Blackwell
outliers disprove trends
seriously?
do you even statistics?
>>7974333
Wolfram isn't dead.
>>7974649
Not that anon but their post was to show they exist not that they are common.
Admit you were wrong and move the fuck on.
Also why is thread even here, isn't it already established this topic is both a meme and a troll?
>>7974661
Still surreal to think about.
>post yfw when he proves it and /sci/ is BTFO even harder than the EM drive exceeding the speed of light
