▲ 846 ▼ So much... (reddthat.com) submitted 1 year ago by LadyButterfly@reddthat.com to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (7 children) That’s because math is fundamentally flawed. Shhhhh. Don’t tell anyone, they get all upset about it. permalink fedilink source hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Axioms@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) Interesting! Could you elaborate on this? I'm intrigued to know the intrinsic flaws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] nednobbins@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Kurt Gödel wrote a whole paper on it. He used math to show that all statements, in any language, can be expressed as math statements. He then proved that it's impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) That's not a flaw. It's one of the greatest mathematical revelations of the 20th century. It's only a "flaw" for people who want to believe in some imaginary positivism. This is a popular grift under capitalism. See also the entire field of economics. permalink fedilink source parent [+] jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) euclidean geometry is famously complete Nah, euclidean geometry was not complete. Tarski didn't come up with a complete version until the 20th century. I'm not sure how famous Tarski geometry is, but it doesn't seem very famous in USA outside of math depts. this doesn’t mean that “it’s impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything,” It says far less than that: "It’s impossible for a mathematical system containing the natural numbers to be both complete and consistent." In itself it has very little to do with physical reality. I think it's more about how we think about math and then its applications. reality itself could be a complete system, understandable from both the outside and inside if only viewed at the right angle… This has been largely debunked. hilbert’s dream is not dead yet, I dunno what his dream was, but Hilbert's program is very much dead. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It has to do with creating measuring devices out of what we can empirically derive, and building successive generations off of those. It’s fine for our local system but by the time you get intergalactic (or quantum) with it, flaws start to propagate themselves bigly. I can’t reveal more at this time or Big Math will get suspicious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eq0@literature.cafe 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Big Math comes knocking: “you mean Big Physics?” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago quoi? Oh désolé, je ne sais pas. Vous devez avoir le mauvais numéro. *sounds of fleeing* permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Axioms@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (6 children) Interesting! Could you elaborate on this? I'm intrigued to know the intrinsic flaws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] nednobbins@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Kurt Gödel wrote a whole paper on it. He used math to show that all statements, in any language, can be expressed as math statements. He then proved that it's impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) That's not a flaw. It's one of the greatest mathematical revelations of the 20th century. It's only a "flaw" for people who want to believe in some imaginary positivism. This is a popular grift under capitalism. See also the entire field of economics. permalink fedilink source parent [+] jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) euclidean geometry is famously complete Nah, euclidean geometry was not complete. Tarski didn't come up with a complete version until the 20th century. I'm not sure how famous Tarski geometry is, but it doesn't seem very famous in USA outside of math depts. this doesn’t mean that “it’s impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything,” It says far less than that: "It’s impossible for a mathematical system containing the natural numbers to be both complete and consistent." In itself it has very little to do with physical reality. I think it's more about how we think about math and then its applications. reality itself could be a complete system, understandable from both the outside and inside if only viewed at the right angle… This has been largely debunked. hilbert’s dream is not dead yet, I dunno what his dream was, but Hilbert's program is very much dead. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It has to do with creating measuring devices out of what we can empirically derive, and building successive generations off of those. It’s fine for our local system but by the time you get intergalactic (or quantum) with it, flaws start to propagate themselves bigly. I can’t reveal more at this time or Big Math will get suspicious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eq0@literature.cafe 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Big Math comes knocking: “you mean Big Physics?” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago quoi? Oh désolé, je ne sais pas. Vous devez avoir le mauvais numéro. *sounds of fleeing* permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nednobbins@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Kurt Gödel wrote a whole paper on it. He used math to show that all statements, in any language, can be expressed as math statements. He then proved that it's impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) That's not a flaw. It's one of the greatest mathematical revelations of the 20th century. It's only a "flaw" for people who want to believe in some imaginary positivism. This is a popular grift under capitalism. See also the entire field of economics. permalink fedilink source parent [+] jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) euclidean geometry is famously complete Nah, euclidean geometry was not complete. Tarski didn't come up with a complete version until the 20th century. I'm not sure how famous Tarski geometry is, but it doesn't seem very famous in USA outside of math depts. this doesn’t mean that “it’s impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything,” It says far less than that: "It’s impossible for a mathematical system containing the natural numbers to be both complete and consistent." In itself it has very little to do with physical reality. I think it's more about how we think about math and then its applications. reality itself could be a complete system, understandable from both the outside and inside if only viewed at the right angle… This has been largely debunked. hilbert’s dream is not dead yet, I dunno what his dream was, but Hilbert's program is very much dead. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) That's not a flaw. It's one of the greatest mathematical revelations of the 20th century. It's only a "flaw" for people who want to believe in some imaginary positivism. This is a popular grift under capitalism. See also the entire field of economics. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) euclidean geometry is famously complete Nah, euclidean geometry was not complete. Tarski didn't come up with a complete version until the 20th century. I'm not sure how famous Tarski geometry is, but it doesn't seem very famous in USA outside of math depts. this doesn’t mean that “it’s impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything,” It says far less than that: "It’s impossible for a mathematical system containing the natural numbers to be both complete and consistent." In itself it has very little to do with physical reality. I think it's more about how we think about math and then its applications. reality itself could be a complete system, understandable from both the outside and inside if only viewed at the right angle… This has been largely debunked. hilbert’s dream is not dead yet, I dunno what his dream was, but Hilbert's program is very much dead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) euclidean geometry is famously complete Nah, euclidean geometry was not complete. Tarski didn't come up with a complete version until the 20th century. I'm not sure how famous Tarski geometry is, but it doesn't seem very famous in USA outside of math depts. this doesn’t mean that “it’s impossible to create any consistent set of math statements that completely describes everything,” It says far less than that: "It’s impossible for a mathematical system containing the natural numbers to be both complete and consistent." In itself it has very little to do with physical reality. I think it's more about how we think about math and then its applications. reality itself could be a complete system, understandable from both the outside and inside if only viewed at the right angle… This has been largely debunked. hilbert’s dream is not dead yet, I dunno what his dream was, but Hilbert's program is very much dead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) It has to do with creating measuring devices out of what we can empirically derive, and building successive generations off of those. It’s fine for our local system but by the time you get intergalactic (or quantum) with it, flaws start to propagate themselves bigly. I can’t reveal more at this time or Big Math will get suspicious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eq0@literature.cafe 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Big Math comes knocking: “you mean Big Physics?” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago quoi? Oh désolé, je ne sais pas. Vous devez avoir le mauvais numéro. *sounds of fleeing* permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Big Math comes knocking: “you mean Big Physics?” permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago quoi? Oh désolé, je ne sais pas. Vous devez avoir le mauvais numéro. *sounds of fleeing* permalink fedilink source parent
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago quoi? Oh désolé, je ne sais pas. Vous devez avoir le mauvais numéro. *sounds of fleeing* permalink fedilink source parent