• Tja@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    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.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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.

          • Tja@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            For something so sensitive, I like to have it. I won’t accept any broad generalization unless backed by a reputable study.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              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?