Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

Pages: **1**

George,Y wrote:

I think Marxism is incontigent, for Karl Marx just doubtfully applied Hegellian dialetics to materilism.

By the way, why do you say they are inferior? They themselves claim to have a "better" logic than "yes or no".

Well, I guess I tend to subconsciously break everything in my life down to Action and Reaction. When I first started looking at Marxist philosophy I realized revolution is a reaction, which is a huge contradiction with respect to Marxist philosophy.

For exampl: Marxists think that revolution is an action, and they try to cover up the contradiction by pointing out how every action contains components of reaction. But think about it, revolution, by the very definition of the word, doesn't just contain components of reaction, it is PURE reaction. Revolution can NOT occur unless there is something to revolt against. That right there, proves it's pure reaction and therefore, the entire Marxist philosophy is flawed. What's funny is, how FEW people have actually noticed this and pointed ito out.

I guess I broke it down into yes and no ... I guess I broke down into mathematical logic with-out even knowing it. I knew MArxist logic was inferior, but I didn't know exactly why, even though the way I saw the flaw was through a mathematical style of logic. Well, now I know.

I get it damnit, I get it ....

Hmmmm ...

Time for more math!

I still think math is an art though ...

Anyway, I appologise for going against the stigma modern math created, and if I commited blasphemy by failing to abide by any theological guidelines set by sacred Math Gods.

I understand how almost all creative thought has been pretty much stigmatized and indoctrinated out of modern mathematics, despite the it's being the reason modern mathematics exists.

I realize how idiosyncratically preposterous it must seem here for someone to claim to love math, yet to go and call it an art and claim to like philosophy of all things as well. To you guys that's probably like a mass murderer claiming to be a pacifist right?

Anyway, I really do love math and that's why I am here. I will for now on pay closer attention to the current belief system, and I won't cause any controversy by stating an oppinion outside of it.

I just need to get back to math, I want to get as good at it as some of you guys are. It's amazing. Math really is fun, and contains a minimal level of B.S most of the time.

Thanks for not mocking me too bad for having an original oppinion. Nowadays originality can bring about a death penality, or close to it.

Gotta go learn more math ...

"So philosophy is more art than science (in my humble belief, anyway), and all the proofs in the world may not change what people think."

I believe science and math are also arts, and that any philosophy can be broken down and proven mathematically.

You seem to be implying that philosphical reasoning isn't credible because it's purely human subjectivity right? Yet scientific reasoning in the grand scale, is limited in the exact same way but what I call terrestrial subjectivity.

Also, isn't it from philosophical reasoning from which math evolved in the first place? How can the creator be any less credible than the creation?

How is it that, most of the "ancient" mathematicians that are responsible for the math you learned in school were also philosphers? It seems to me that it's been the more philosphical/scientific type of people who act and cause things to evolve, whereas, the purely "scientific" type of people seem to only react to this and remain complacent, untill a philosphical reasoning again comes along that presents a credible enough possibility of a significant discovery or change in something.

What about guys like Aristotle, or Kepler, a guy who was beyond the point of being philosphical, reaching mystical, yet from his ideas a scientific revolution was born, Newtons laws were sort of based, and modern understanding of science exists.

So basically, all the "non-artistic" methods which dictate your truth, were created by what you may call "artistic" methods?

George,Y wrote:

Math structure is basically based on a simple philosophy-either A, or not, but not both. This is a logical, but insufficient interpretion of our world.

Is it truly insufficient though, or is it just a matter of analyzing the #@$ out of "our world" in order to properly identify the A's from not A's?

By the way, thanks for deciding to help, despite my apparently maniacal nature of presentation!

If all members of class d, are members of class m, then if x is not a member of class m, x cannot be a member of class d.

And

If any member that appears to be a member of class d but is not a member of class d , also appears to be equal to any member of class m but is not equal to any member of class m, then if x appears to be a member of class d but is not a member of class d, then x also appears to be equal to any member of class m but is not equal to any member of class m.

That's all I got!

**MATHSKITZO**- Replies: 14

My interest in philosophy is what lead me to love mathematics so please bare with me. Those of you who have studied philosophy may find this ridiculous, but I would learn much through your explaining of why.

I was doing my daily philosophizing and started to wonder if the word dialectics and the word mathematics are synonyms.

If dialectics is the process of ariving at truth through logical arguments, and mathematics = logic at it's highest level, then dialectics, in it's most efficient and therefore logical form is: the arriving at truth through mathematical arguments, which is exactly what mathematics is.

Is it not?

Hegelist and Marxist philosophies for example are therfore paradoxes described as: non-mathematical mathematical idealism and non mathmematical mathematical materialism, intrinsically incomplete because of thier inferior and limited non mathematical logics. Therefore, our current methods of philisophical reasoning through lower levels of logic, inevitably result in illusionary truths. Consequently, such paradoxal illusions hold, because of the flawed levels of logic used to prove them superficially.

Is this not in itself in direct contradiction with the definition of dialectics?

Is it logical to attempt to arrive at something "logically" through an inferior means of logic?

Sounds like we have a lot in common mikau.

I taught myself alegebra after being out of school for almost 10 years and never really showing up to math class when I was in school.

I am still teaching myself actually, I will be taking an online version of math 30 which I need for uni, and right now I'm just trying to master the book from the last pre calculus course I dropped out of.

The only thing I took in college so far was a few astronomy course because I like that stuff, and you can do some fun stuff with math in it.

It's nice to meet you dude.

It was me who said he likes learning on his own. So far I just take random university transfer courses at college, and I liked it that way because I take exactly what I want and it actually counts towards a degree.

But even that annoyed me, I learn much better on my own, as long as I have some sort of outline of what I need to know, otherwise it gets messy.

And by the way, I think seeing the beauty in simple things is the same as seeing relationships in math or science. People are just usually used to one or the other. Heck everything is the same, even the orbit of sattellites around planets reminds me a lot of the electrons around a nucleus. Everything is like this. Everything is the same.

Patrick wrote:

mikau wrote:The reason why so many mathematicians, creative or not, have hard times in social situations is because they are too intelligent to care about all the irrelevant garbage most people rant on and on about for hours!

Hah! Mathskitto, your a genius! Everything your saying is painfully true!

Am I just making something up, or do I get a feeling that you think you are better than people who aren't interrested in math? If that's what you mean, I have to say that I

stronglydisagree.

Yeah, the world would be pretty boring if it were full of **just** mathematicians.

But I don't think you were talking to me.

BEST WAY TO MAKE MATH CLASS NOT BORING:

1)Use your imagination (if you have one), and come up with a truly originally theory about something.

2)Look at math class as a way to build the skills you need in order to prove that theory.

Suddenly learning math will actually be fun, and you will be way more motivated.

It works for me, although, I have theories about pretty much every subject you can think of and I prefer to learn on my own rather than in class.

John E. Franklin wrote:

Personally I would like to have two or three part time jobs where some was physical work and some was brainy work.

Or even a workplace that allowed some sort of shift changes during the day to something else.

I think variety is the spice of life.

You remind me of Marxists.

And I don't mean that in a derogatory way.

I just don't have the patience for all the feigned emotion apparently required when socializing. If I'm happy I might smile, if I'm not I don't. I think all the rituals of smiles and absolute bliss when you first meet people are completely pointless. And I'll try not to get started on how being direct and honest has become forbidden, being replaced with subtle hints, inefficiency, political correctness, and the annoying tendancy most humans have to be a little more direct only when talking to someone other than who an issue concerns.

It's agitating to me how complacent the average human is with respect to important issues, yet the same average human reacts with such apparent passion when someone refuses to abide by or stay within the frivolous pre-determinded boundries that cause most of society to resemble the Borg from star Trek..

This is the first time I saw his questin actually.

It got drilled into by head doing rational inequalities I think ...

Can't divide by zero.

I don't get it either

"I read that one side of your brain is more scientific, while the other is poetic. And most people usually have one side of their brain more developed then the other. Is it possible that one side of the brain gets so big the other side gets squashed dead?"

People who are "poetic" are usually more creative. Highly creative people take longer to learn things because their minds are on so many different things constantly, and they're always looking for new ways to do things, so few of them ever get good at math because math takes a long time to learn. The creative people who actually spent the time to get good at math, are the ones who's names you read about in books. The reason why so many mathematicians, creative or not, have hard times in social situations is because they are too intelligent to care about all the irrelevant garbage most people rant on and on about for hours!

That's my theory.

Ohhhhh, I see it now, I was thinking illogically about the fourth power. I should have wrote it down and thought about it.

Thanks.

**MATHSKITZO**- Replies: 2

Can someone explain exactly why and how this is true?

i^0 = 1

i^1 = i

i^2 = -1

i^3 = -i

i^4 = 1

i^5 = i

Thank you.

**MATHSKITZO**- Replies: 8

Hey people:

I am 28 year old dude, who didn't care about anything other than partying highschool (partially because I saw everything as trivial and irrelevant), I have been trying to make up for it for over a year now.

I taught myself math far past what I ever learned in school, then went back to school, took two uni level astronomy courses while also upgrading (and learning) Math 30 for the first time. (Math 30 is like pre calculus.)

I've always loved science, but I never found math as fun untill recently. I ended up dropping out of the math 30 course I was taking because it was all about memorization. It was about learning to pass a math exam, NOT LEARNING MATH. For some reason, my brain completely rejects anything it doesn't understand the living math out of. I currently spend about 8 hours a day analyzing the living math out of every little thing in math I am supposed to learn, as well as philosophizing the math out of every little thing I come across in mathematics. I need to be able to visulalize everything and to do that means you must understand the math out of everything.

I never thought I would turn into such a geek, but it's happening and I can't stop it. Nor do I want it to. I can't wait to get started on calculus, although I will probably teach it to myself because I learn WAY better that way. (as long as there is someone to help me when I get stumped.)

Anyway, if it was up to me, I would get so ridiculously good at math, that I never have to speak Enlgish again.

Any advice on different games, or things to work on to totally max out my math potential would be much appreciated. I am willing to put a ridiculous amount of effort into improving my math skills.

Math is not a means to arrive at truth, Math IS the only truth!

I am ready for some Mad Math!

Thank you, and nice to meet you all.

Pages: **1**