she/they

  • 0 Posts
  • 516 Comments
Joined 3 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年6月12日

help-circle




  • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zonetoScience Memes@mander.xyzI dunno
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 天前

    Maths is so much more malleable and abstract than what you think it is. You really do not understand maths as well as you think you do, and I feel a bit sad for any student of yours that would wish to explore some deeper revelations of maths, just to be told “nope! That’s just how it is!” with no further thinking at all.

    A lot of maths is chosen. Choices with good motivation, but choices nonetheless. So long as there not being contradictions or paradoxes, the formulation of a form of math is valid. Which is why you have different forms of maths with different rules.

    And you really could use some more humility, it’s obnoxious when you act all so high and mighty and arrogant, with no interest in questioning your assumptions. Devolving into ridiculing the person you’re discussing with and a general vibe of “omfg I’m right you fucking idiot because I’m right how dumb can you get??”

    Like, what is it that you want here, a book from the 700s of the one dude that invented arithmetics and told clearly “I chose this.”? You are making your arguments effectively unfalsifiable by just going “Nuh uh” all the time.

    Get some humility and learn a bit about the foundations of maths. Like. Down to set theory. See for yourself what actually is the foundation. And, spoiler, it’s not a high school textbook. Hopefully I do not need to tell you how concepts are simplified for younger students, instead of overwhelming them with the complete knowledge of a subject.



  • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zonetoScience Memes@mander.xyzI dunno
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 天前

    That’s a very simplistic view of maths. It’s convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

    Just because a definition of an operator contains another operator, does not require that operator to take precedence. As you pointed out, 2+3*4 could just as well be calculated to 5*4 and thus 20. There’s no mathematical contradiction there. Nothing broke. You just get a different answer. This is all perfectly in line with how maths work.

    You can think of operators as functions, in that case, you could rewrite 2+3*4 as add(2, mult(3, 4)), for typical convention. But it could just as well be mult(add(2, 3), 4), where addition takes precedence. Or, similarly, for 2*3+4, as add(mult(2, 3), 4) for typical convention, or mult(2, add(3, 4)), where addition takes precedence. And I hope you see how, in here, everything seems to work just fine, it just depends on how you rearrange things. This sort of functional breakdown of operators is much closer to mathematical reality, and our operators is just convention, to make it easier to read.

    Something in between would be requiring parentheses around every operator, to enforce order. Such as (2+(3*4)) or ((2+3)*4)


  • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zonetoScience Memes@mander.xyzI dunno
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 天前

    The rules are socially agreed upon. They are not a mathematical truth. There is nothing about the order of multiple different operators in the definition of the operators themselves. An operator is simply just a function or mapping, and you can order those however you like. All that matters is just what calculation it is that you’re after




  • It’s not fundamentally different to body language or tone in person. How do we know what a gesture is supposed to convey? Everyone needs to be on the same page, right?

    And yet, it seems to work. Just as phone texts seem to work. Humans are excellent at language, we pick these things up subconsciously and through exposure over time to people’s/the same person’s texts