How do you prove this? Through definitions? An appeal to authority is not valid proof.
This line of reasoning reminds me of when people were saying the “square root of 2 isn’t 1 because mathematical scholars say so”…No, it’s by definition not one. Count one thing one time, how many things have you counted? One.
I don’t need a source or an authority for that nor for 1+1=2. I need to understand the basic definitions and concepts.
The proof is something like 300+ pages long and they needed to invent a few new branches of mathematics to reach the end, because it’s strictly not based on appeal to authority. I didn’t even try to understand it, but it’s a cool piece of trivia.
I mean I understand that there are academic standards of proof, but the idea that those are necessary for casual conversations about easily understood concepts is pretty ridiculous.
It seems like one of those bojack memes where the drooling person at the one end and the Jedi at the other end would both say just count a couple of rocks and the nerd in between would be saying write a 300-page proof.
Things like basic property of counting are not mathematical strict definitions.
Relying on “dude, it’s obvious” doesn’t work in science, you need to prove things. Otherwise you’d think a feather and a cannonball always fall a different speeds, for instance.
And you’re trying to prove that mathematics works the same way as physics weirdly with regards to proof? It doesn’t. You do proofs in precalculus and none of them involve dropping cannonballs and feathers from the ceiling.
But again, we’re not talking about an environment where formal proofs are necessary. This is social media, we’re a link under cat photos.
You’re kinda sensitive about everything. You want a 300-page thesis before acknowledging that 1+1=2.
Which it’s kinda funny, this whole thing has been an aside but like…you said you tried to read it and didn’t really understand it. Is that really what you need to have a casual conversation about something? A proof, study, or document too long or complicated for you to be able to prove it’s wrong?
Disclaimer: This is off-topic.
How do you prove this? Through definitions? An appeal to authority is not valid proof.
This line of reasoning reminds me of when people were saying the “square root of 2 isn’t 1 because mathematical scholars say so”…No, it’s by definition not one. Count one thing one time, how many things have you counted? One.
I don’t need a source or an authority for that nor for 1+1=2. I need to understand the basic definitions and concepts.
The proof is something like 300+ pages long and they needed to invent a few new branches of mathematics to reach the end, because it’s strictly not based on appeal to authority. I didn’t even try to understand it, but it’s a cool piece of trivia.
It’s a basic property of counting though, right?
I mean I understand that there are academic standards of proof, but the idea that those are necessary for casual conversations about easily understood concepts is pretty ridiculous.
It seems like one of those bojack memes where the drooling person at the one end and the Jedi at the other end would both say just count a couple of rocks and the nerd in between would be saying write a 300-page proof.
Things like basic property of counting are not mathematical strict definitions.
Relying on “dude, it’s obvious” doesn’t work in science, you need to prove things. Otherwise you’d think a feather and a cannonball always fall a different speeds, for instance.
Mathematics isn’t an empirical science.
And you’re trying to prove that mathematics works the same way as physics weirdly with regards to proof? It doesn’t. You do proofs in precalculus and none of them involve dropping cannonballs and feathers from the ceiling.
But again, we’re not talking about an environment where formal proofs are necessary. This is social media, we’re a link under cat photos.
My point is broader, you need data and rigor, not “dude, just look at it”.
And my point is that you don’t need data and rigor for every single discussion.
For something so sensitive, I like to have it. I won’t accept any broad generalization unless backed by a reputable study.
You’re kinda sensitive about everything. You want a 300-page thesis before acknowledging that 1+1=2.
Which it’s kinda funny, this whole thing has been an aside but like…you said you tried to read it and didn’t really understand it. Is that really what you need to have a casual conversation about something? A proof, study, or document too long or complicated for you to be able to prove it’s wrong?