The guy actually has a good point. Geometry is not Empirical.
>>7651803
Obviously.
sage
That’s what math is— wondering, playing, amusing yourself with your imagination. For one thing, the question of how much of the box the triangle takes up doesn’t even make any sense for real, physical objects. Even the most carefully made physical triangle is still a hopelessly complicated collection of jiggling atoms; it changes its size from one minute to the next. That is, unless you want to talk about some sort of approximate measurements. Well, that’s where the aesthetic comes in. That’s just not simple, and consequently it is an ugly question which depends on all sorts of real-world details. Let’s leave that to the scientists. The mathematical question is about an imaginary triangle inside an imaginary box. The edges are perfect because I want them to be— that is the sort of object I prefer to think about. This is a major theme in mathematics: things are what you want them to be. You have endless choices; there is no reality to get in your way.
>>7651803
No shit, retard. None of math is empirical. Science and math are different things and Math is vastly superior because it relies solely on priori truths.
Have fun doing repetitive lab experiments for the rest of existence.
>>7651818
So math is postmodern?
>>7651803
>Geometry is not Empirical.
Supposition is not Empirical either, Sherlock.
Lrn2empirical
>>7651873
what do you mean by that?
>>7651861
>math is vastly superior
autism
>>7651803
There is the
>Irrational
>Imaginary
>Real
Actual versions of 0 as compared to their
>Median
>Average
>Mean
Cross comparisons
ARGUE ME OR BE BTFO
>>7651861
>math is a priori truth
Nope. When you see primitive concepts (ones which should be understood intuitively only), like lines, coming into play, you see that math is empirical. Take sets for example. The best definition I could find is "many, which logically allows itself to be thought of as one". But what does "many" mean? You can perhaps define it using natural numbers, but they are themselves defined using sets (a naturally ordered semigroup, to be more precise). So you see that the existence of sets, which are the fundament of most other branches of mathematics, is an empirical fact.
Another example of the fundamentally empiric nature of math: Aristotelian logic. Most of the mathematical knowledge is based on it, but the experiments show that it isn't basal, it's in fact the statistical effect of the quantum logic (they differ in few things, for example in Aristotelian logic Boolean operators are commutative while in quantum they are not). So logic is empirical.
Now let's return to the thing mentioned by me already, lines. They are primitive too and their existence is supported by empirical observations. Whole geometry is based on a thing fundamentally empirical.
>>7653232
good stuff, eh?
>>7653968
good like your moms tang was last night
>>7653982
t-thanks
>>7651977
>le butthurt scientist/engineer guy
When I was going to graduate I was really good at physics and mathematics but I would say that I was better at physics than mathematics. I was debating myself about what to study in college and of course both mathematics and physics were in my mind, among other things. When I had to do my A levels I obviously picked Physics as my science and when the laboratory part came I did it with no sweat but I could only think that I'm not going to be some monkey doing manual labor to set up experiments for 4 years. That pretty much settled it. Pure math major master race.
>>7653227
lol, get a load of this retard.
>Sets are empirical.
Go on, show me an example of an infinite set.
>Logic is emprical
Justify the existence of many different types of conflicting logics.
>lines are empirical
A line is typically just formalized as a predicate in some logic. In Projective Plane Geometry one can actually swap the "meaning" of line and point and still end up with a projective plane geometry (this is called Duality).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duality_(projective_geometry)
Different types of geometries are formalized with slightly different sets of axioms (see incidence geometry). There are many things that are true about our real world intuitive "emprical" perspective of geometry that are not provable in geometry itself (see pasch's axiom). This is because the empirical observation's you're talking about actually only give you information about a model of geometry but not geometry itself.
U dum as hell
>>7651803
Why is he obsessed with being politically correct
He can't draw anything without blacks/women in charge of power
>>7654733
You can safely remove that tinfoil hat anon. My understanding is the artist flips a coin to choose the sex and skin color of the characters.
