User Controls
The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-03-31 at 5:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist
.
i fap to women getting their eyes ripped out
Originally posted by Lanny What do you think it mean for math to be "true"?
Logical contradiction is not the same thing as empirical falsification. While generally we accept logical contradiction as a refutation of scientific theory we also accept empirical falsification. The same is not true in mathematics. There is no experiment that can be conducted to falsify a mathematical conjecture, and proofs are not "evidence" in the scientific sense.
Much of research mathematics has no application so I'm not sure what you think "purely functional" means here.
o like wat about when they model it in a program to see if an object theoretically can exist or a computation can be performed? thats testing if something actually works, instead of your bad writing where you just believe everything that goes through your head. are you really comparing a syntax where every term has to be supported by every other term to "the oblique ontologolygons of the gaseous realm brings up to a higher dimensional state" type bullshit that you love to discuss? the solvent you drink daily is corroding your brain. -
2018-03-31 at 5:42 AM UTClets ask lanny what the correct answer is
-
2018-03-31 at 5:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Enter i think it would be e
if it was a then wouldn't the third pic of the square look the same as the first one, not the second?
Originally posted by inb4l0pht a would just be a reflection along the y axis of the third row center. I don't see how it fits.
Just kidding it’s obviously b -
2018-03-31 at 6:24 AM UTCits E
-
2018-03-31 at 6:25 AM UTCI knew it!
-
2018-03-31 at 6:25 AM UTCon each row: 45 clockwise rotate between A and B, then 90 clockwise rotate between B and C
-
2018-03-31 at 6:51 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus o like wat about when they model it in a program to see if an object theoretically can exist or a computation can be performed? thats testing if something actually works
When they model what? Mathematics? How would you model a theorem in a program? If I opened calc.exe and typed in 1+1 and it said 3 do you think that would constitute a refutation of anything at all in mathematics?instead of your bad writing where you just believe everything that goes through your head. are you really comparing a syntax where every term has to be supported by every other term to "the oblique ontologolygons of the gaseous realm brings up to a higher dimensional state" type bullshit that you love to discuss? the solvent you drink daily is corroding your brain.
The irony in this post is staggering. -
2018-03-31 at 6:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny When they model what? Mathematics? How would you model a theorem in a program? If I opened calc.exe and typed in 1+1 and it said 3 do you think that would constitute a refutation of anything at all in mathematics?
The irony in this post is staggering.
bertrand russell wrote a 1000 page proof on why 1+1=2. since you love wankery that might be a good start. but hurrrrr proof isnt real my philosophy professor told me this that everything is subjective and i believe him because i like cults of thought do rainbows even exist objectively bro? -
2018-03-31 at 6:57 AM UTCmath: how things work
lanny: but what does it mean for something to work?? deep right?? -
2018-03-31 at 6:58 AM UTCYou know Bertrand Russell was a philosopher right lmao
-
2018-03-31 at 6:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus bertrand russell wrote a 1000 page proof on why 1+1=2. since you love wankery that might be a good start. but hurrrrr proof isnt real my philosophy professor told me this that everything is subjective and i believe him because i like cults of thought do rainbows even exist objectively bro?
You're retarded if you haven't figured out there's a difference between formal proof and empirical test by now.
Also I'd like to point out that principia mathematica is the biggest example of someone getting blown the fuck out in the all the history of mathematics. -
2018-03-31 at 7:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny You're retarded if you haven't figured out there's a difference between formal proof and empirical test by now.
Also I'd like to point out that principia mathematica is the biggest example of someone getting blown the fuck out in the all the history of mathematics.
oh so you're making the rudimentary cringey argument over whether mathematics is a natural law or an applied system. does it matter? anything recognized with a mathematical proof can have flaws in the syntax that damage it and make it disregarded, as in counter-proofs. philosophy is just up to someones interpretation and how it relates to their own view of the world.
you're literally saying philosophy and math are logical equivalents
you are retarded
but you're just a guy posting nauseous disinformation on a message board -
2018-03-31 at 7:04 AM UTC"this is how the universe works"
what if it isnt how the universe works man?
*shows 300 page proof*
what if the proof isnt real dude?
"whats your counterargument"
math is unfalsifiable
"kill yourself retard" -
2018-03-31 at 7:04 AM UTCIf I were sploo, I would take up a minor in philosophy just to avoid getting burned like this again. Shit like this scars you for life.
-
2018-03-31 at 7:04 AM UTC
-
2018-03-31 at 7:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick If I were sploo, I would take up a minor in philosophy just to avoid getting burned like this again. Shit like this scars you for life.
he's claiming math and a philosophy any person can make up are equivalent in value
this is like how a 10 year old version of me would view the world. fuck fractions, right? -
2018-03-31 at 7:06 AM UTCDoesn’t Lanny have an advanced degree in mathematics or something
-
2018-03-31 at 7:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus and im referring to something that was intended to be logical. i cant say for sure because i haven't read it. not like lanny has read it either. he's just trying to keep up appearances
I'm taking a liberty here when I say that Lanny has probably taken a philosophy of science course, and maybe also an analytical philosophy course. Russell would be standard reading in such courses. -
2018-03-31 at 7:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus oh so you're making the rudimentary cringey argument over whether mathematics is a natural law or an applied system.
No, and you'd know I wasn't if you knew what either of those things meant. I'm telling you statements in mathematics are deductive in nature, while theories in science are almost always supported inductively. You'd have been able to figure that out by now if you knew anything about any of math, science, or philosophy.you're literally saying philosophy and math are logical equivalents
Nope, you're just retarded. -
2018-03-31 at 7:08 AM UTC
