06-14-2017 01:51 AM
#76
| |
06-14-2017 01:51 AM
#77
| |
|
No because with maths they are either right or wrong. With language they can take variable meanings from a phrase or more. There is a school of thought that what the artists mean is unimportant compared to what the critic takes from it. They are open to interpretation, some of my favourite quotes I know for a fact I don't take them as the artist means them, that doesn't mean that what I took from it is wrong. In Maths that is 100% not the case. |
06-14-2017 01:59 AM
#78
| |
|
What is much more common place in maths is for someone to make a list of assumptions and you go from there. This isn't thought to be true it's jus tthought to be a usable approximation of what is going on. |
Last edited by Savy; 06-14-2017 at 02:07 AM. | |
06-14-2017 02:00 AM
#79
| |
That just means the phrase wasnt as defined as you'd have liked. If a phrase has more than one meaning, it means either more than one meaning exists by definition...or it means someone failed in accurately conveying or understanding the idea. | |
06-14-2017 02:04 AM
#80
| |
|
No it means it wasn't defined. I have no problem with stuff being defined in multiple ways either as long as it is consistent. Not accurately conveying something means it isn't a definition. You can misdefine things but this is exactly that a mistake. |
06-14-2017 02:21 AM
#81
| |
We're at an understanding roadblock, but I think we're on the same page. I'll go to bed with this: | |
06-14-2017 02:30 AM
#82
| |
|
You're saying language could become a thing like maths where everything is defined etc. Yeah maybe it could. I personally don't think that's better than what we have now, or maybe I would and I just can't see it reaching that point which is fair. On a level language tries to convey shit that is much more complicated than maths but that's a different point I suppose. |
06-14-2017 02:44 AM
#83
| |
| |
06-14-2017 07:58 AM
#84
| |
| |
06-16-2017 02:43 PM
#85
| |
I believe in maths because I'm good at it. | |
| |
06-17-2017 03:34 AM
#86
| |
| |
06-17-2017 03:34 AM
#87
| |
| |
06-17-2017 10:12 AM
#88
| |
Hey wuf! This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but I think it'll give you plenty of food for thought when it comes to similarities in the mythological stories of many different cultures. | |
06-17-2017 11:26 AM
#89
| |
| |
06-17-2017 11:28 AM
#90
| |
| |
06-17-2017 11:32 AM
#91
| |
| |
06-17-2017 11:36 AM
#92
| |
| |
06-17-2017 11:40 AM
#93
| |
Black holes can be sensed. | |
| |
06-17-2017 11:42 AM
#94
| |
| |
06-17-2017 11:47 AM
#95
| |
| |
06-17-2017 11:53 AM
#96
| |
| |
06-17-2017 11:56 AM
#97
| |
| |
06-17-2017 07:01 PM
#98
| |
Well no, it's not like that. All I said was if something already exists you can't really invent it, you can only discover it. As far as giving people credit for one versus the other, there's no value judgment implied in what I said; you're reading things into my words that aren't intended. | |
06-18-2017 02:08 AM
#99
| |
| |
Last edited by Savy; 06-18-2017 at 02:11 AM. | |
06-18-2017 02:15 AM
#100
| |
| |
06-18-2017 07:46 AM
#101
| |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 06-18-2017 at 07:48 AM. | |
06-18-2017 07:50 AM
#102
| |
| |
06-18-2017 08:07 AM
#103
| |
| |
| |
06-18-2017 08:11 AM
#104
| |
Great, maths is discovered. | |
| |
06-18-2017 08:14 AM
#105
| |
Further, where there are two mountains... it doesn't require someone to be able to count for there to be two mountains there. | |
| |
06-18-2017 08:17 AM
#106
| |
No. Someone had to conceive the wheel, someone had to manipulate physical objects in order to create the object they conceive. | |
| |
06-18-2017 08:20 AM
#107
| |
| |
06-18-2017 08:24 AM
#108
| |
Newton didn't invent gravity, nor did he invent the laws of motion. He discovered the laws of motion, and observed gravity. He didn't even discover gravity, he just explained it (rather well but not nearly perfectly). | |
| |
06-18-2017 08:26 AM
#109
| |
| |
06-18-2017 08:40 AM
#110
| |
No he didn't. He didn't invent the words he was using. He merely figured out how to apply the maths to his concepts, he solved the puzzle better than anyone else for a long, long time. But he didn't invent anything, with the possible exception of a slightly flawed intepretation of physical laws that already existed. I suppose that he was wrong means he did invent something! But, that's just pedantry. | |
| |
08-08-2017 09:21 AM
#111
| |
Mathematics is not a science. | |
08-08-2017 11:08 AM
#112
| |
|
Why are the mathematics axioms assumed true? |
08-08-2017 11:52 AM
#113
| |
| |
08-08-2017 01:25 PM
#114
| |
Pretty much what Savy said. | |
08-08-2017 01:58 PM
#115
| |
I dunno, I think maths is sort of science. I think it's like a chess opening database compared to an endgame tablebase... science is the study of openings... it develops, and new openings become superior to what were once considered optimal. Maths is like the tablebase, working backwards, slowly figuring out all possible outcomes, starting with the most basic and becoming ever more complicated. | |
| |
03-01-2018 10:37 PM
#116
| |
I thought you'd like this, wuf. | |
03-01-2018 10:50 PM
#117
| |
|
Cool, thanks. |