Mathematics - 2017-06-27 (page 2 of 6)

Zee

6:00 AM

Actually I would simulate you, I would make a horrible algebraist

Typhon

@Abcd ah ok. That makes sense now.

Leaky Nun

@Typhon I couldn't care less what "they" claim

Daminark

@Leaky is that so? I was under the impression that derived SI units were more, when you put different ones together. For example, Joules are a derived SI unit

But changing the base isn't deriving new units, then every possible unit would be an SI unit

Leaky Nun

@Daminark Joules is also a derived unit

Typhon

@Abcd the reason units are in rings and not fields is because we dont have reciprocals of things like distance and time afaik. I might be wrong on that.

Leaky Nun

6:01 AM

@Daminark you're just multiplying by 3600 :p

Typhon

@LeakyNun Just giving you context.

Leaky Nun

@Typhon what? units in rings? is this 11th grade physics or undergrad math?

Daminark

Well yeah, what I mean is that a derived SI unit is when you take a unit of measurement, one that's given by, say, distance squared over time, and then you take the unit such that it numerically checks out

But merely scaling to get a different unit simply puts you outside the SI frame entirely

Typhon

@LeakyNun nonono. Units in physics... are elements of abstract rings. It all makes a hell of a lat more sense in that context.

but they are rings and not fields

as 1/seconds does not exist

afaik

Daminark

This is why I actually do believe that strictly speaking, hours fail to be an SI units

@Typhon Hertz

Typhon

6:03 AM

@Daminark i stand corrected. thank you

Daminark

But yeah looking back at the question, I don't think units is the problem really

Typhon

@Abcd oops. Physical units are elements of fields.

Zee

@Daminark you can't use reason to examine the foundations of the world, since that's what reason is based on, and no system justifies itself. You can choose not to use reason then but you would be irrational

Daminark

Reason is based off physical reality? That's very iffy

Typhon

@Daminark it makes it vague. I've seen it be the setup for trick questions where a random 1/60 appears

Leaky Nun

6:04 AM

it looks like I am wrong @Typhon @Abcd @Daminark

Typhon

@Zee or you'd be imaginary.

Leaky Nun

hour is not a SI derived unit

Zee

@Daminark I don't see how else it could be?

Daminark

They didn't assign any values to constants is the issue

Leaky Nun

SI derived units are finite products of SI base units

and their inverses

Typhon

6:05 AM

Algebraic number field

In mathematics, an algebraic number field (or simply number field) F is a finite degree (and hence algebraic) field extension of the field of rational numbers Q. Thus F is a field that contains Q and has finite dimension when considered as a vector space over Q. The study of algebraic number fields, and, more generally, of algebraic extensions of the field of rational numbers, is the central topic of algebraic number theory. == Definition == === Prerequisites === The notion of algebraic number field relies on the concept of a field. A field consists of a set of elements together with t...

Daminark

If they let $g = 9.8 yada yada$, that would be a choice of unit

Leaky Nun

@Typhon what is Hz?

Zee

@Typhon you would be imaginative

Leaky Nun

@Typhon in a field every non-zero element is a unit

Daminark

But right now, as it stands, if you haven't assigned any values to constants or specified units, then this holds for any one consistent unit system

Typhon

6:06 AM

@LeakyNun no clue but it is a thingy in electricity. Damninark already mentioned it.

@LeakyNun i know that.

@LeakyNun hence a set of the form x*seconds is a field as its reciprocal exists.

Zee

@Daminark stop being skeptical, you are lying to yourself

Typhon

"hertz"

granted, I don't know the reciprocal of "meters"

Leaky Nun

I like to imagine units as a group of free products

abelian

Typhon

ymmv

Leaky Nun

not free products

Daminark

6:08 AM

@Zee I mean, it could also be that reason is strictly formal (which sounds much more compelling to me, but at this point it's a question of what your starting assumptions about everything works, and that's a question of taste/intuition), an abstract mechanism that determines how truth values operate

Leaky Nun

basically Z^7

Typhon

regardless 1/meters doesnt exist so units are rings primarily

same with mass and force as well

and energy

Leaky Nun

1/meter is a unit

Typhon

O.O

Daminark

Lol, this isn't particularly skeptical, this is a very standard, I merely believe formality as being distinct from physics. I didn't think it was all too radical

Typhon

6:09 AM

what is it?

Leaky Nun

@Typhon rings are stronger than groups

@Typhon it doesn't need to have a name to be a unit

Daminark

@Typhon it's not a unit you'll encounter often, and but really you just take some products and it all checks out

Typhon

@LeakyNun it doesnt exist in physics though or ever come up. presumably, it doesnt exist in the physics sense.

@Daminark oh ok.

@LeakyNun i know? so...?

:38390798 oooh

Daminark

It is one of those things, I will say, where to say that some quantity evaluates to 5 (1/meters), you'd need to basically measure the quantity that corresponds to 1/that, and then apply it, as opposed to just measuring

Typhon

theres a 1/v isnt there?

Leaky Nun

6:11 AM

@Typhon what is the unit of pressure?

Typhon

where v is volume

Zee

@Daminark I think we are on agreement about rationality being formal, but you ARE skeptical, not unusual at all, I was like that and many philosophers are like that, but after a certain point it was just rationality going crazy, you gotta have a little common sense, you can deny the world all you want but you are not being true to yourself since you do live as if it appears

Typhon

wow

im an idiot

Daminark

That, or sometimes if you have 1/meters as being a number of something per meter, since a number/amount isn't really in a unit

(So, how many oscillations happen in one second? That's hertz)

Typhon

oooh

Daminark

6:12 AM

I'm not denying the world, of course the world is there and everything

Leaky Nun

1 Pa = 1 N m^-2 = 1 kg m^-1 s^-2

there, both 1/m and 1/s

Daminark

I'm just saying that it seems far more sensible than not that if the laws of physics changed sharply, the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle would still hold.

Typhon

true but does JUST 1/m exist

XD

Leaky Nun

yes

Typhon

ah fair enough

Leaky Nun

6:13 AM

although it is not as commonly used as Hz

Zee

@Daminark my god, no way

Daminark

Can we reasonably test this fact? Of course not, but common sense (which at this level is not much more than intuition) leads me much more that direction, in fact so as to make its negation seem implausible

Leaky Nun

you also have density = mass / volume, so 1 kg m^-3

Typhon

y'know sometimes there are units in rings that happen to be special cases. Have to find the case proving them all. :p

ah kk

Leaky Nun

stop conflating units in physics with units in rings

Typhon

6:14 AM

i wasnt

Leaky Nun

when you don't even have the addition defined

Typhon

...

i was saying that there are units in rings such as 1 in the integers that reciprocate but not others.

Leaky Nun

ok

Zee

@Daminark you keep pulling me into philosophy, I won't fall into your traps anymore

Typhon

@LeakyNun i shouldn't need to. It's pretty fricken obvious how that would work.

Daminark

6:16 AM

The fact that you can talk about ideas which don't really seem to have much of an embedding into physical reality, or potentially knowingly couldn't be embedded, and still reason about them makes reason a solid candidate for standing on its own two feet

Typhon

1 meter + 1 meter = 2 meters

Daminark

I mean, these discussions couldn't really avoid the philosophy

Leaky Nun

@zee I thought you started the discussion

Daminark

:P

Zee

@Daminark I can't reason about them, we are just playing a game

Leaky Nun

6:16 AM

@Typhon 1 meter + 1 second = ?

Zee

@LeakyNun I did but I did not want to go hardcore philosophy

Typhon

@LeakyNun meter and second are elements of different sets. They're incompatible.

Leaky Nun

doesn't make sense when you started a discussion about reason and physics and expect to avoid philosophy @zee

Typhon

if you have a conversion formula, please share it.

Leaky Nun

@Typhon then is m/s a unit?

Fargle

6:18 AM

One cannot do science without doing philosophy first. It's just that most people shortcut their metaphysics as being "that which makes science doable" without really delving into it.

Zee

@LeakyNun he's just good at bringing the dark side of me out but those things don't needn't philosophy, which is nothing more than a mental disorder

Typhon

yes, we define it as a special constant. no weirder than i being the square root of negative 1 even though it isnt a real number.

Zee

No wonder they killed Socrates, he was poising the mind of the youth with this nonsense

Fargle

@Zee If that's what you think about philosophy, you haven't read much philosophy, or at least haven't read it in good faith.

Leaky Nun

@zee I thought you started the discussion

Typhon

6:20 AM

@LeakyNun granted, m/s is in a different set most likely. One formed by some kind of algebraic extension.

Leaky Nun

@Typhon then I have no idea at all what sort of analogy you are trying to use

Zee

@Fargle well I can assure you , I read much more than I would like, I even majored in it, waste of time

Fargle

@Zee I'm sorry that that's your perspective. All I can do is assure you that it's not a waste of time.

Zee

And I can assure you the converse

Leaky Nun

to me, philosophy isn't really applicable to the real world, but it's a fun subject to ponder upon

Fargle

6:21 AM

Without it, we would not have modern science or modern mathematics.

Zee

Exactly, it's just a game

Lololol

Leaky Nun

and it is a really humbling discipline as one can view their own limits in philosophy

@Zee then what is "dark" and "poisoning" about a game?

maybe the truth is dark and poisonous to you lol

Typhon

@LeakyNun I'm saying the different units are elements of their own algebraic rings/groups/fields. I'll leave it up to you to decide which set goes with each. Each unit type is a separate field. There's just formulae linking some of them like how the complex numbers are a super set of the real numbers. I'm not making an analogy so much as identifying the underlying algebra of physical units.

Zee

It messes with my head sometimes

Leaky Nun

you can't handle the truth lol

Daminark

6:23 AM

The level of philosophy that we're doing is really not that deep

Typhon

They are elements of algebraic sets.

Zee

Speak for yourself

I have finished philosophy

Daminark

Like, we're just being careful about certain metaphysical assumptions and engaging in reason, which to be fair blurs the line

Fargle

@Zee That's a bold claim.

Typhon

at least... based on how physics treats them when using them

Daminark

6:24 AM

Philosophy versus reason, I mean, they're close, one could almost go as far as to say they're essentially identical

Zee

@Fargle I could be one of the next in the line of great philosophers but I chose not to

@Daminark pure bolany

Daminark

Bolany?

Fargle

@Zee And what would you have contributed? A working definition of knowledge that doesn't have Gettier cases? A meta-ethics which is both consistent and not prone to being picked apart by thought experiments?

Daminark

And I mean, depends on what comes to mind when you're talking about philosophy

Typhon

@LeakyNun i hope i made sense. I mean... I haven't fleshed it out entirely. I just recognize the fact that units of physics are some kind of "non-complex" number.

Daminark

6:25 AM

If you're thinking speculative stuff, then be sure to note the implications of each position

For example, that there's a notion of ought is in some sense a speculation, you have to black box that there's value in things, that there's free will, etc

Typhon

and i presume they individually form fields

Daminark

Remove that and all you get is Hobbes

Social contract, and it's not even morally binding so much as it just happens because of a monopoly on force

Fargle

I can sit here and say I coulda been the next Jimi Hendrix--that doesn't mean that's anything other than retrospective wishful thinking, to be frank. And, given your disdain for the subject, I doubt you would have wanted to do it, and therefore likely wouldn't have done it.

Daminark

So from a moral standpoint, you either assume there's some notion of ought and study the subject, or you just say that's done. People follow their noses and believe that there is that notion of ought, then proceed to study the subject using reason

Zee

@Fargle your view of people is too simplistic

Daminark

6:27 AM

For what it's worth, that's analogous to what happens in science as well

Fargle

How does my view of people factor into this at all?

Daminark

If you assume there's no necessary consistency in the universe, then science just stops

Zee

@Daminark ethics? Please don't go there

Fargle

Should we just have a list of topics we're not allowed to discuss because @Zee doesn't like them?

Daminark

But people, following their noses, believe sufficiently much in the reliability of induction (not mathematical induction, just you know, if things worked right every time before, it'll do so again) that they go and black box this, then proceed to develop science

Typhon

6:28 AM

@Daminark I cannot make an argument for the existence of free will other than to say that if it didn't exist than that would be strange and mortifying as I am 100% certain that i actually exist as something external with respect to my body. I can tell that I am observing from my body and not just a biological machine. I'll presume that this is a human trait. For it to be otherwise would also be mortifying and insane.

Zee

@Fargle you assumed my disdain implied something about my ability to do philosophy, where it's the complete opposite, y'all like philosophy just couse you don't truly understand it yet

Fargle

No true Scotsman would leap for that fallacy.

Typhon

@Fargle what fallacy?

Fargle

@Typhon The "no true Scotsman" fallacy--in this case, that the only reason we like philosophy is that we don't truly understand it.

Typhon

@Fargle ooooh.

Fargle

6:30 AM

Which, uh, point me to any philosopher who truly understands the subject and I'll point you to the large body of epistemology that shows that that's literally impossible.

Zee

you seem to be arguing with me, like we are in a court room

Am not here to "win"

Typhon

i thought you were referring to me to which my counter would be "If there is an afterlife (assuming not would be insane at this point), I'll personally say (if allowed)... 'told you so'."

anyways

tis late

goodnight

Fargle

You're denigrating the most important field of thought in human history, while simultaneously claiming to have "finished" it. I'm arguing to win.

Typhon

@Fargle not me i hope?

Fargle

It's exactly that perspective that has led to students being so intellectually underfed.

No, not you, @Typhon.

Typhon

6:32 AM

ah good

Daminark

I mean, we're arguing this in large part because we have yet to see any compelling reason to believe the claims you are making. If you can actually convince us that you're right about this, believe me we'll drop our case in minutes

Zee

Your pulling me into a philosophical discussion and am trying to pull out philsophy it self

Daminark

I mean maybe not because devil's advocate

But like you get the idea

Typhon

philosophy doesn't interest me, primarily because I think of it as overthinking on the strong sense and I already do too much overthinking. XD

Fargle

@Zee You started the discussion in the first place--any discussion of the foundations of science and reason is necessarily a philosophical one.

Pop quiz: what was science called before it was called "science"?

Zee

6:34 AM

@fargle natural philosophy

Which is a scam

To dupe people who aren't aware of your tricks

Typhon

in other words "I hate philosophy because I'd rather think about more tangible things"

Daminark

Additionally, the basis on which one chooses to leave philosophy must be a philosophical one, so if we're debating that, it'd have to be a philosophical debate

Typhon

personally dislike

Fargle

Defend that position and I'll listen to your denigrations with more than the salt content of the Dead Sea.

Zee

@fargle what position? That philosophy is bull?

Fargle

6:35 AM

Yes.

You're allowed to not like it.

But that position is intellectually untenable.

Zee

I like it very much

I just think it's for children

Typhon

@Zee philosophy is the study of mindsets and viewpoints. Explain how that is a bad thing to study, please?

Daminark

@Fargle I'd be a bit cautious on the whole, natural philosophy thing

Philosophy is now more suggestive of a particular type of inquiry, while with the Greeks it was just the study of truth.

Fargle

Alright, let me ask my three-year-old cousin what he thinks about monads. BRB

Typhon

lol

Zee

6:36 AM

@Fargle let me tell you what I think since your being serious

Typhon

i personally think philosophy is overrated but certainly not bull

Daminark

But still, even such matters like metaphysics aren't useless

Typhon

(overrated in this context)

some people claimed it was the basis of all science

granted

idk philosophy

Daminark

For sure they're not necessary in various contexts

Typhon

i might be wrong on that

anyways...

it is late and i need to rest

Fargle

6:38 AM

If you're "doing science", you are resting on the assumption that the world we observe is truly the real world. That is a metaphysical assumption. Philosophy is "baked in".

Zee

@Fargle It is not a subject but a way of thinking about things, saying you are a philosopher, is just as meaningfull as saying you are a speclist in visual thinking

Fargle

I don't entirely disagree. But I don't think that makes it bullshit.

Daminark

In science you can afford to black box a few of them that more or less match with the layman intuition (e.g. that physics won't be like "L M A O" tomorrow and change), and decide that others are not of particular relevance to your work (e.g. if physical reality isn't real, we can't know that, so whether or not I do study it doesn't really matter, I can just reframe it as necessary)

Typhon

@Fargle really? I just claim the thing im observing is the same thing i observed earlier. I have no qualms with anyone desiring to claim we live in a computer. That's a religious debate. We might disagree but that doesn't invalidate science.

Leaky Nun

@Typhon this has nothing to do with religion

Daminark

6:39 AM

But even then, there is room for thinking about philosophy

Typhon

@LeakyNun i meant that if we were in a computer then the world we observe isnt real.

Daminark

And again, the question of whether there is such a thing as morality is in fact RATHER relevant to our daily lives, etc etc

Leaky Nun

@Typhon it still has nothing to do with religion

Fargle

@Typhon But if the only thing you're testing are your own observations, and you're not trying to solidify claims about the real world, and you think the real world is independent entirely from your observations of it, what's the point of science at that point?

Zee

@Fargle what makes it bullshit, is the guys writing a philosophy book, which is just as writing a book about what you found out thinking visually. It would be a geomtry book but with no math, "you can move this ball in your mind to the right and the ..." meaning it's nonsense

Daminark

6:41 AM

Okay you just made a massive jump

Okay so your specialization is thinking visually, right?

Typhon

@Fargle because I am making observations about a thing, but what I claim that thing to be is irrelevant to me studying the qualities of it.

Daminark

That can derive actual results

Fargle

@Zee So you deny that visual thinking can tell us anything about that which we can visualize?

Typhon

and the point of science is that it allows us to do things we couldn't otherwise

Daminark

@Fargle at least wrt meaning, this was a sort of snipe

Zee

6:41 AM

I don't see where I said that...

Leaky Nun

Should we put "ΑΓΕΩΜΕΤΡΗΤΟΣ ΜΗΔΕΙΣ ΕΙΣΙΤΩ" in the chatroom description? @Daminark @TedShifrin @Fargle

7

Fargle

@Zee Then can't philosophy tell us things about which we can think?

Daminark

All in favor of @Leaky's suggestion, say aye!

Fargle

Aye.

Leaky Nun

star my suggestion lol

Zee

6:43 AM

the method of philosophy, can be useful in science and many other things, but that has nothing to do with the academic subject of philosophy

Typhon

@Fargle also my point is that things living in a digital world could study science even though their "real world" is completely unreal. Hence to say "If you're "doing science", you are resting on the assumption that the world we observe is truly the real world." isn't true as it is all relative.

regardless

bye

Daminark

Lel, see you

Fargle

@Typhon But I ask again: if you don't think we're observing the real world, how can it be that what you're doing is called science?

Zee

The problem is that philosophers confuse the method of philosophizing with it actually being some kinda of a theory

You can't have a theory of how to think about something in a certain intuitive sense

Daminark

To my understanding, they talk about the act of philosophy as an act

Fargle

6:45 AM

I agree with Dami here.

Daminark

And they refer to the theory of the types of things they're thinking about, and what they conclude

So ethics or metaphysics is a field of study, philosophy is the act of studying it

(Also you could argue that studying the act of philosophy can somehow fall under epistemology but now we've gotten recursive so I'll hold that thought off, for now at least)

Fargle

Yeah. Epistemology is a broad study of the questions of what constitutes knowledge, how to attain knowledge, and what differentiates it from belief, among several other questions.

Zee

Well that the idea, they confuse the fact that you can use the method as a way of think, to constructing a world view that depends TOTALLY on it

Fargle

But when you work in epistemology, you are necessarily "doing" philosophy.

There is no such thing as a worldview that doesn't depend on thinking philosophically.

Daminark

Wait, let me be clear about something, what do you mean by "it"?

Zee

6:48 AM

The method

Fargle

Even if your worldview is just "shit makes sense", you've still given your perceived answer to several philosophical questions.

Daminark

How could it make sense if your world view didn't depend on the method?

Zee

It's like a guy who wants to only understand the world visually and refuses to speak or read or count or...

Daminark

(And thus, make it important that you understand well your method)

Also, philosophers totally use results from other subjects

Zee

Sure it does

If you take enough drugs

Daminark

6:50 AM

If someone makes a philosophical claim which has implications that contradict known results in, say, biology, it will not take too long before other philosophers are like "Erm... What?"

Zee

You mean like Schopenhauer?

Yes, that's why no one reads him anymore

Daminark

However, since they are trying more to look at those parts of reality they're concerned with (similar to how, say, physicists are more concerned with understanding that part of reality and not so much, history), they will black box the works of biologists and move on. Often, their work needn't interset

Zee

Sarcasm...

@Daminark you can't do that

Fargle

What form of inquiry besides visual thinking would you suggest to answer the question "Where is my computer?"

Should I count? Read? Speak?

Daminark

Can't do what? Black box the works of biologists?

Fargle

6:52 AM

Similarly, what form of inquiry besides philosophy would you suggest to answer the question "What is knowledge?"

Abcd

@LeakyNun

Zee

@Daminark the philosopher is concerned with all the fields of knowledge, in the same way, non of them as well

Fargle

@Zee Peter Singer is pretty focused on ethics. I've never heard of him making a claim in philosophy of math.

Leaky Nun

@Abcd done

Zee

@Fargle I would not ask such a question, not only is it no answerable, even in philosophy, but it has no experimental verification

Daminark

6:54 AM

Well, they are concerned but at what level?

Fargle

@Zee Then you've already made the philosophical assumption that unverifiable claims are not worth answering, and several other philosophical assumptions about what counts as verification.

Daminark

They are concerned with it epistemologically, studying their methods to see if they are sound, and they are concerned with the results once they're derived, insofar as they are relevant in one's particular work

Zee

@fargle the steps are easy, I can pull him into an argument from ethics to reason to logic to math, I know all the dirty tricks

Daminark

Now, the field of philosophy as a whole, especially if you look at its Greek root "study of truth", obviously everything follows

Fargle

@Zee Then do it. Why use this against me in an argument? It gets you nowhere unless you do it.

Zee

6:56 AM

@Fargle couse you don't wanna learn and teach me

You just wanna play lawyer with me

Fargle

If you somehow get Peter Singer off-topic on ethics in an email debate and force him to make a claim about philosophy of math, I'll film a video of me eating my own hat.

@Zee What's there to teach? You've already finished philosophy.

Zee

No one wins a philosophy argument

It's all just a game

Daminark

But then also, everyone is a philosopher, and they're just engaged in their more particular anyway, so now let's talk about that

Zee

And I can play , very well, just don't expect me to treat it more than a game

Daminark

@Zee if someone comes to you with a kitten and says it's actually a rabbit, then proceeds to accuse you of playing lawyer if you continue to disagree, that doesn't check out

Now, what you're saying is not quite of that form, but there's an analogy to be made here

You're making quite a number of claims that are implausible to us

Fargle

6:58 AM

@Zee Why would I be engaged in this argument other than that I am concerned that you've chosen to entirely discredit an entire set of bodies of knowledge off-hand, and want you to not be so misguided?

That's not playing lawyer. That's pure interest in your well-being.

Daminark

So it makes a whole lot of sense that we continue to defend until convinced, and the likelihood of the latter happening isn't looking too hot

Zee

But you are putting me as the attacker

Fargle

But, whatever. If you're going to misattribute my intentions, you're clearly not arguing in good faith and I have no reason to be here.

Zee

When in reality you have to show me why it is usefull

Daminark

Useful to what end?

Zee

7:00 AM

@Fargle you want to win this argument couse it strikes a sensitive cord with you, totally natural reaction, I have all the time, and did with philosophy, but I free myself of it and you should too

@Daminark you find philosophy to be more than just a game, show me how

Idk why people are getting triggered, am pretty much saving you all years of wasted time, and that's how I get repaid...

Am out

Daminark

I mean, I find philosophy to be learning that which is true, and I think that even if I don't come to too many actionable results in such fields as metaphysics, some amount of context seems to be worth having. Additionally, its emphasis on being careful about assumptions could be beneficial to my pursuit of truth in other respects

As much as I like engaging in philosophy, I'm likely to become a mathematician or theoretical computer scientist

This allows black boxing for sure, though philosophical mindsets have led to good work in math (such as logic).

And it's just a heathy practice, you know?

Zee

@Daminark it may train you, but as truth itself, you need to show me how it contains any of it

Am not even demanding a fully logical proof

For me, the chief value of philosophy, is that it allows me to meet smart people and that's it

Daminark

I mean, if you're asking about merely the act of philosophy, that doesn't tell you the subject of inquiry much. Thinking about the axioms of set theory and Russell's paradox is an act of philosophy

Fargle

How does it strike a sensitive chord with me other than that I want people not to offhandedly dismiss some of the most important human thought in history?

Zee

@Daminark I don't see how is that any different that mathematics

Daminark

7:06 AM

I think some about ethics, for example, since that informs how I act (though mine are in large part religiously tied, my willingness to do so following from certain ideas in metaphysics)

Fargle

I have to have this same argument with my family about the value of pure mathematics. God help me if I have to explain to you why that is valuable.

Zee

@Fargle I really don't know what to tell you, expect that you drank too much of the koolaid

Fargle

Actually back any of your claims. Seriously. Give some evidence. You said yourself that you don't value knowledge that can't be verified. Prove it to me.

Zee

@Daminark ethics can not rationally be justified, thank god we aren't fully rational creatures

Daminark

I mean the line is blurry, math and especially metamath are pretty philosophical (not just in the old context, but closer to its modern connotation) in spirit

Zee

7:07 AM

@Daminark your confusing a subject and a method

Daminark

Well, as much as I think Kant might have been somewhat iffy on the details, I think he really went the right direction

Zee

@Fargle calm down , am not claiming anything, but that it was not show to me that philosophy contains anything more than a game, the academic field at least , not the method

@Daminark ethics wise?

Fargle

You claimed that philosophy--the broad, academic field--is bull.

In your own words.

Daminark

Okay, fair point, better worded, the act of engaging in math and especially metamath resembles closely the act of those people who are usually thought of today when people say "philosophy"

Zee

Yes

Daminark

7:09 AM

@Zee Yeah

Fargle

So you've made a claim.

Show me, what papers have you seen that strike you as bull?

What books?

Zee

@Fargle I can list so many

Fargle

Then do.

Zee

Do you really want me too

Fargle

Yes.

Daminark

7:10 AM

Okay wait let's qualify this request slightly before you go through with it

Zee

Pretty much take all the works of philosophy up to the 20th century, with the exception of a few books

Fargle

Name specifics. And name your exceptions.

And yes, I really want you to.

Zee

My exception would be the philosophers who dealt with exsistenlisim and religion

Fargle

Like whom?

Zee

Nietzsche , Montaigne,

Kieerkegaard

The later Schopenhauer

Def not the French

Daminark

7:12 AM

If someone just publishes something that is generally considered nonsense anyway, perhaps not. If some belief was reasonable, widely held, and then later found to be discredited, also that shouldn't count as "bull"

Zee

I would say platobhad a couple good books, the republic and permandes probably

Fargle

Okay, I'll pick Sartre as an example of a philosopher you think spat out bull.

Is that a fair pick?

Zee

Sure

Well I would say he recycled most of it

So it may be good but he just took what's good of other people before him and made it worse

Fargle

In what way?

Daminark

Hmm, I shall temporarily bow out and merely observe since I know little of Sartre, for all I know he may be bull

Zee

7:13 AM

Wittgenstein is pretty cool, he's full of shot but still cool

@Fargle well I didn't get tooo deep into him couse he didn't bring much that was new, but he recycled much from Hegel for example

Fargle

In what way is, say, "The Myth of Sisyphus" taking the nascent field of existentialist thought and making it worse?

Zee

Hegel is def fulll of bullshit, I read him deeply

Fargle

It seems just as salient.

Zee

Well you bring me these guys

But they are light weights

Every philosopher worth his salt would read Hegel before Camus or sartre

Talk to me about Hume or Kant

Plato

Fargle

I'm going to be honest. This discussion is going to give me an aneurysm.

Zee

7:18 AM

Why?

Fargle

Whether you're right or not, the way you argue is just unpleasant. I have nothing against you, but seriously, re-examine how you discuss things with people. I'm gone.

Zee

@fargle well you can give me tips you know

@Fargle but it may also be your emotional reaction...

Am out

Daminark

In fairness, you did have a kind of condescending tone, couple that with your position, it basically sounded like "Kek all these plebians you call the great thinkers that have had enormous influence are total bs, I'm the only one who knows what I'm talking about here"

7

Perhaps it came across like that more than you intended it to

But either way, making that bold a claim and treating it like it's common sense can, within reason, annoy people

Especially when the implications of that claim trivialize so much, and when the claim really doesn't seem that true

But anyway, see you

Balarka Sen

In general I convinced myself that talking to Zee rationally about pretty much literally whatever that is meta is a massive waste of time for me. There are better ways to waste one's time.

Kevin Yin

7:39 AM

Browder uses the coproduct symbol for connected sum of manifolds with boundary (Surgery on Simply Connected Manifolds P41), is that an unfortunate collision or something meaningful?

Mike Miller

7:50 AM

@KevinYin The former.

The connected sum of manifolds with boundary on the interior should be the same symbol. The "boundary sum" is denoted with the symbol $\flat$.

meh not that

$\natural$

abenthy

8:06 AM

Since $GL(n,\mathbb{C})$ is both an open subvariety of $\mathbb{A}_\mathbb{C}^{n^2}$ and can be identified via $A \mapsto (A,\det(A)^{-1})$ with a Zariski-closed subset of $\mathbb{A}_\mathbb{C}^{n^2+1}$, we have two notions of connectedness for subsets of $GL(n,\mathbb{C})$. Are they equivalent?

Is maybe $GL(n,\mathbb{C})$ homeomorphic as a subset of $\mathbb{A}_\mathbb{C}^{n^2}$ and of $\mathbb{A}_\mathbb{C}^{n^2+1}$? This would answer the question.

user164144

8:31 AM

Hi. Just a quick question. If X1, X2,X3, X4 are all uniform (theta, 2theta). What is the distribution of the maximum?

felipa

8:44 AM

hi.. can anyone tell me what is wrong with my question math.stackexchange.com/q/2336862/70000 ?

it has 0 votes which surprises me

I thought it was an interesting inequality question

is it unclear?

Transcript for

$Mathematics$ Mathematics