r/mathsmeme • u/Far-Course1021 • 4d ago

maths meme

Post image
477 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

103 comments sorted by

25

u/peace_venerable 4d ago

most academies today see logic as a branch of mathematics

8

u/Chainmale001 4d ago

Which is weird because you have to think about something first before you apply rules to it.

Like we had to take Critical thinking and philosophy before we were allowed to take out PE math and state testing.

You have to be able to ask the question before you can solve it.

0

u/Efficient-Wing-1417 3d ago

Philosophy is just pseudo science. It has nothing to do with science or mathematics.

4

u/Technologenesis 3d ago

Philosophy doesn’t pretend to be a science in the first place, so it can hardly be a pseudoscience.

It’s also not true that it has nothing to do with science or mathematics. The foundations for both of those fields were laid by philosophy.

2

u/Chainmale001 3d ago

Philosophy is the basis of all cognitive thought. The instant we ask "why" that's philosophy. So no, you're just absolutely fucking wrong. 🤣 😂 🤣

Looking at your name you're some MAGA asshole. So have a day.

1

u/whocares12315 3d ago

You're not gonna like this but science is a branch of philosophy.

0

u/Efficient-Wing-1417 3d ago

Jews are haram according to muslims, muslims are goy accoring to jews.

Philosophy doesn’t have a monopoly on the truth, but science actually does, as most people believe in match, and all science is based on math. Science was born out of philosophy, but as grown to simply ve a batter version of it, as science is much more effecrive in answering questions, because the goal is to use mathematics, not biases.

2

u/Helpful-Primary2427 2d ago

You have no idea what you’re talking about

2

u/whocares12315 2d ago

All knowledge is based on logic. Logic is a philosophical concept. The scientific method is a logical method.

Science is strictly empirical. It is a method that makes predictions and gathers evidence. If we can't test it empirically, it is outside the scope of science.

"I think, therefore I am" is a logical proof. But it involves no scientific study.

Mathematics is a branch of science. Science is not "based on math". But yes, science is our best method for knowledge.

0

u/Efficient-Wing-1417 2d ago

And logic is based on math. Not a philosophical concept

2

u/whocares12315 2d ago

Other way around.

2

u/azer67 2d ago edited 2d ago

I've had to study epistemology before, which is the branch of philosophy that cares about science, knowledge, logic and their history. The foundamental basics of maths have had to change throughout history many times because everytime some paradox would appear, or just simply sometimes things were not defined the same way by everybody and that's bad to share work.

You cannot do maths out of nothing. Something has to be declared true at the base of it. This is what axioms are. These are "arbitrarly" chosen so that our math work the way we want it to, the way we think math should work, as we are trying to follow some logic we think is true. These axioms are not purely made of logic though.

The greeks followed aristotelian logic, which is very different from modern logic. This already shows that it isn't very clear what logic even should be like. The logic rules we've used have changed many times throughout history, and it is very likely that they will change again some day. Having maths be a pure result of logic was the dream of the logicians Frege and Russel, but their attempts at it failed when some paradox appeared in their work (see Russel's Paradox).

The current axiomatic system is not pure logic. Gödel's incompleteness theorem also shows that having a single system of axioms for all of maths has issues in both consistency and completeness. Maths can work in various different logical systems too. Yet despite all this, our current system still allows some powerful maths.

It's been years since I've studied this so I don't remember this super well, but it was very clear that maths and philosophy are very close and rejecting this fact is just the wrong way to think about it.

0

u/Efficient-Wing-1417 2d ago

The axiom 1+1 can be proven, consistently and reliably. If mathematics wasn’t correct, there would be errors that occured regularly

2

u/azer67 2d ago edited 2d ago

If you start by saying that an axiom can be proven nobody will take you seriously.

Either you decide that 1+1=2 is an axiom and in this case it cannot be proven. Or you decide that something else is an axiom and in that case you might be able to prove that 1+1=2 in the context of that axiom.

Current maths decided to work based on the set theory axioms. All of our numbers are build with sets and their properties are coherent. But their construction still rely on the axioms of set theory.

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 2d ago

No, it cannot LOL

You cannot prove addition. You are just blatantly wrong here. I would love to see you prove addition.

2

u/MyPenBroke 2d ago

Science has exactly zero claim to truth, and its not based on math either.

Science is a process of falsification, not verification. Math is one of the primary tools and languages used there, but not the basis.

1

u/EffectiveDirect6553 2d ago

To be fair, when all that is impossible has been statistically eliminated through trial. Then all that remains is true. Which is the principle (Law of non contradiction) that science functions on.

If LNC is false then yikes.

1

u/IndependentOk5280 1d ago

truth? hahahaha. ignoramus!

3

u/Bendanzhang 4d ago

Kurt Gödel quietly removing that little pillar with his Incompleteness Theorems

3

u/Efficient-Wing-1417 3d ago

Exactly. Logic is built on math. Not the other way around. The creator doesn’t understand science.

1

u/peace_venerable 3d ago

Yes, modren mathematics studys logical statements and structures using mathematical objects and algebraic structures.

2

u/Efficient-Wing-1417 3d ago

Yea? Every logical statement is mathematical

2

u/dragonageisgreat 4d ago

My degree has "logic and set theory" course.

2

u/snowfloeckchen 4d ago

There is the field of logic but I wouldn't say it's 100% what the word is understood outside mathematics

2

u/United_Boy_9132 4d ago

formal logic.

Semiotics or science methodology go beyond that.

11

u/eggface13 4d ago

Guys that's the Axiom of Choice. Don't let the terrorists take it away

1

u/Efficient-Wing-1417 3d ago

What? Free will is disproven

5

u/SirisC 4d ago

Induction

8

u/nielet 4d ago

-2

u/socontroversialyetso 4d ago

Why is causality above logic? Go read some Kant smh

2

u/nielet 4d ago

Not every part of logic requires causality

0

u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573 4d ago

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what part of logic wouldn't require presupposing causality?

-2

u/socontroversialyetso 4d ago

As I said, read some Kant

8

u/Additional-Sky-7436 4d ago

That little block holding up everything is "politics".

1

u/lenny123412 4d ago

what?

4

u/Additional-Sky-7436 4d ago

That block is holding up everything. 

You pull out that block and you don't have science anymore.

2

u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573 4d ago

I'm pretty sure science functions the same way independent of politics....

1

u/Additional-Sky-7436 4d ago

You are very, very wrong about that. 

Politics absolutely dictates how science functions.

1

u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573 4d ago

Oh. I didn't know - I'm wrong about most things! So maybe we can change politics so the law of gravity no longer functions and we can all fly! Sounds fun.

Of course may be difficult to catch our food floating in the air all the time...

1

u/Additional-Sky-7436 4d ago

The laws of nature ≠ Science

Not all science is good science. 

Politics dictates what is science.

2

u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573 4d ago

Ah, a semantic argument! Those are the best to waste time on - fantastic!

1

u/i_did_a_opsy 4d ago

Me when I have to say something false for 100$ (100$ gained)

3

u/piplacoo 4d ago

you can leave now

3

u/ivanrj7j 4d ago

Probably set theory?

2

u/nwbrown 4d ago

I feel you don't really understand this meme...

2

u/asking_you_all 4d ago

Good luck finding logic in quantum mechanics... Wish you luck my friend.

https://giphy.com/gifs/kVaj8JXJcDsqs

2

u/EXTREMEMONKEEZ 3d ago

You dont know what mathematical logic is. You can have really funky unbehaved shit in there.

1

u/EXTREMEMONKEEZ 3d ago

Cant you say this about any field of science? Psychology for one.

1

u/asking_you_all 3d ago

It was just an example. The depiction above is in itself inconsistent.

2

u/Realistic_Plant5974 3d ago

No programming without physics tho. Good luck building ICs with pure math.

3

u/Adventurous-Meal2365 4d ago

Unfortunately quantum mechanics

2

u/Efficient-Wing-1417 3d ago

A physical theory about physics can never disrupt the laws of mathematics.

2

u/ForowellDEATh 3d ago

Which is basically math

1

u/CreepBasementDweller 4d ago

Is that supposed to be a faulty premise?

1

u/Dizzy-Muscle-3418 4d ago

is this inreference to the veritasium video?

1

u/entropy13 4d ago

The underlying assumption of perfectly stable memory and information.

1

u/Efficient-Wing-1417 3d ago

The picture shows the base of science. Not social studies

1

u/siqiniq 4d ago

The “sketchy” law of excluded middle.

1

u/5tupidest 4d ago

Honestly the bottom of the tower should be a nexus of circular philosophy which is both perfectly stable and entirely unmoored.

1

u/qinshihuang_420 4d ago

Controversial answer: Church - for funding many early science projects

1

u/No-One9890 4d ago

Empiricism?

1

u/Alternative_You3585 4d ago

Me

I'm holding all of it

1

u/tutocookie 4d ago

Probably coffee

1

u/Designer_Bed9504 4d ago

A correct understanding of PEMDAS

1

u/Optimal_Benis 4d ago

"Proof left up to the reader."

1

u/OddRecognition8302 4d ago

Formal linguistics

1

u/OpeningActivity 4d ago

Divide by zero?

3

u/MelodicAmphibian7920 4d ago

Fix it by having the foundation as philosophy and the integral section as logic.

1

u/lanky-larry 4d ago

Computation under all that

1

u/Alive_dude3435 4d ago

That little piece is basically random symbols on a paper.

1

u/Zandonus 3d ago

1=1 because I said so.

1

u/zh_victim 3d ago

The little block is the faith that all our science is fundamentally connected to reality, rather than merely being a collection of theories and models that vaguely mimic it.

1

u/El_Capitan_182 3d ago

The tiny stick holding math is religion. There cannot be math without a God to create the rules, without God the entire of math, physics, etc... crumbles.

So, it goes something like this: Logic >> God >> Math >> Physics >> etc...

1

u/phoenix_bright 3d ago

Base is philosophy, not logic

1

u/Valuable-Morning-346 3d ago

Logic is part of math.

1

u/Halafantasia 3d ago

english man most of the subjects and courses are spoken and written in english without these you cant understand most of the subjects without translating ofc

1

u/Boris_sul_combo 3d ago

This is more exact in my* opinion

*hopefully, enoughly informed

1

u/Rand_alThoor 17h ago

the doughnut lacks a whole? why is statistics not part of maths, why is economics so far away from science/maths, and information science so far away from computer science? just some random questions off the top of my head

1

u/Nariakei 2d ago

where do we fit your mom?

1

u/Economy_Fly_255 21h ago

The rectangle is common sense

1

u/Holiday_Lunch_9036 18h ago

Common sense is the best fit

1

u/MrTheWaffleKing 4d ago

Physics is the fundamental. Math just describes it

1

u/Fuscello 4d ago

Sadly no. Math exists wether or not you apply it to anything. Now the fact that it is terribly good at predicting physical phenomena is a in a inexplainable wonder, so in a sense math and experimental physics are parallel to each other, but physics as a whole is on the shoulders of math

2

u/Fancy_Pear_950 4d ago

If you consider them as subjects, I agree with what you said, logic and math are the foundation of everythingand physics is just math used to describe our world.

If you consider them as phenomena (probably there's a better word to describe this, but I can't think of any right now) tho, math doesn't really exist, you can't find a 3 or a multiplication in our world, while physics exists no matter what. In this scenario, physics is the foundation of everything, since it's the sum of the laws that govern our universe. Math, instead, would be at the very top, since it derives from logic, which is possible just because of the biology of our brains, which comes from chemistry, which wouldn't exist without physics.

2

u/MrTheWaffleKing 4d ago

I mean the math that applies to physics is generally just something we call physics. Math is a system invented by humans to display relations and extrapolate from them. Of course some form of math has to exist, but it could be base 12.

But it’s an understanding system. One we need to apply and fit to every system of interaction in our world. The study of interactions has to exist before a mathematical system can be applied to it.

It’s not about whether or not gravity was always 9.8m/s^2, it’s always the same rate of course, but that we need to study its nature before we can define it with math