|
| ▲ | efficax 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| "tautological games". All proofs are a form of tautology, you have to end up back at the point your theorem proposed. Math is games of logic. That's what it is. |
|
| ▲ | wongarsu 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Academic math is a bit like basic research. You come up with funny ways to look at numbers or prove weird statements about this thing you came up with and call a "group", and a couple years or decades or centuries later it turns out that this solves real problems in electrical engineering or biology Or it ends up never becoming useful. But you can't know that in advance |
| |
| ▲ | tsunamifury 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Disagree, basic research, no matter how dull, is an observation of a measured reality. Math Theory are patterns of abstraction that may never be useful at all or representative of reality. | | |
| ▲ | lioeters 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > may never be useful at all Nobody is qualified to judge the usefulness of mathematical, scientific, artistic, or any other kind of research that people choose to dedicate their time doing. And the world is better for it. > or representative of reality This so-called "reality" you speak of is some arbitrary representation in your head. It's your theory and patterns of abstraction, as you call it. Who knows how far or close you are to "objective" reality, whose existence we can only know through representations and abstractions. Mathematics and logic are some of the best tools we have of getting closer to that truth and understanding. All the sciences and even some of the arts are based on it. | |
| ▲ | fn-mote 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Parent seems to conflate “abstract” with “useless”. This comment addresses the “abstract” part only. > Math Theory are patterns of abstraction that may never be useful at all or representative of reality. This is a complete misunderstanding of (good) mathematical research. The results look abstract, but they are based on concepts that are real and have truth or falsehood. One example that comes to mind (sorry, technical): is it possible that all maps from a high dimensional sphere to a three dimensional sphere (S^2) might form a group that is not even finitely generated? This is not just “abstract nonsense”, but understanding any of this takes effort. | |
| ▲ | lyu07282 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | “May never be useful“? You make it sound as if there aren't countless examples of those "abstractions" of theory/pure math turning out to be useful in all kinds of fields in the past. This feels like the more general anti-science argument of 90% of science is useless and never produces practical applications, the point people never understand is that nobody knows which 10% it's going to be so you have to do the 100% to get to the 10%. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dwaltrip 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Look up how pure mathematics connects back to reality in countless unexpected and useful ways, time and time again. |
|
| ▲ | throw-the-towel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| To borrow a common wisdom about marketing, half of all mathematics is a waste of time, but you can't know which half. |
|
| ▲ | jstanley 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We call a proof that is not tautological "wrong". |
|
| ▲ | chermi 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Very useful games, self-importance or no. See pattern, conjecture generalization, test generalization. It's almost like empirical math. I like it and I also like mathematicians doing it the old way. |
|
| ▲ | deeznuttynutz 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Don't do that... |
