Why does every analytic philosopher seethe on "foundation of mathematics" and "ZFC" when real mathematicians do not care these kin...

Why does every analytic philosopher seethe on "foundation of mathematics" and "ZFC" when real mathematicians do not care these kind of thing?

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    not every analytic philosopher seethes on "foundation of mathematics" and "ZFC"

    • 1 month ago
      Literal Schizo

      People who call themselves analytical philosophers in IQfy seethe it tho

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why does every analytic philosopher seethe on "foundation of mathematics" and "ZFC" when real mathematicians do not care these kind of thing?

    Not true, they care.
    It is just a special field not anyone goes into.
    Its like physics. Not any single physics goes into theory of relativity.
    Just a few ones.

    Its the same like the mathematics.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why do philosophers seethe on "metaphysics" and "ontology" when real physicists do not care about these things or even acknowledge their validity?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Metaphysics is real but contentious, ZFC is made-up nonsense no one cares about

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >s-stop talking about it, no-one cares
        >y-your field is insignificant, so just sh-shut up, ok?
        >I SAID STOP TALKING ABOUT IT

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >why do philosophers care about the foundations of different kinds of knowledge when specialists in those kinds of knowledge do not care?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Teen love sucked ass tbh

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      none of us would know

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this for me. Had teen gf and she cheated on me. Never had a relationship since because I'm too much of a bitter tosser now to ever trust anyone anymore.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      My first gf in 8th grade was objectively evil.
      She wanted attention so bad that she pretended to cut herself and cry suicide privately to me so that I'd be too terrified to leave. I didn't understand what to do so I just stayed silent. Broke up with me which felt like a relief but she then started dating literal morons to try and make me jealous. I'm talking slack jawed, drooling, unwashed, obese morons.
      She single-handedly made me stop pursuing girls for the rest of high school because it was my first impression on dating and I didn't want another psycho stalker.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s almost like it’s a philosophy and not a mathematical question.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    real mathematicians dont have the privilege of working in unpopular fields

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That picture isn't true at all.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >"foundation of mathematics" and "ZFC"
    You don't even know what those are and it shows.
    Consider the following: mathematics are based on the natural world. Philosophy is deeply connected to mathematics, one of the links being logic. The ZFC logic system enables the use of the Axiom of Choice as... well, an axiom in mathematics. The Axiom of Choice is a useful tool that lets you prove several results, like Tychonoff's Theorem. The problem is that AoC is also linked to the Banach–Tarski paradox, which says that:
    >Given a solid ball in three-dimensional space, there exists a decomposition of the ball into a finite number of disjoint subsets, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball.
    And that result may contradict the rules of the natural world, because doing that is seemingly impossible.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >mathematics are based on the natural world
      no, the natural world is based on mathematics

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why is Banach-Tarski such a pseud dogwhistle?
      >oh no, I deliberately did something unphysical with intermediate non-measurable sets and received an unphysical result - how could this ever have happened?
      Big fricking deal.

      It's funny how the same cucks who complain about Banach-Tarski seem to have no problem at all with other utterly unphysical math like "complex numbers". Is there anything more unphysical and ungeometric than a "square root of a negative number"? But you've been indoctrinated to accept that and to just shut up and calculate.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Complex numbers are not a paradox, they are just an intermediate step towards real numbers. Its not even remotely the same.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Banach-Tarski isn't a paradox either it's just counterintuitive.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Russel's paradox is also not a paradox just a counter intuitive claim that everyone but the most piercing minds understand.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Russel's paradox is also not a paradox just a counter intuitive claim
            Russel's paradox leads to the defined set being both contained and not contained by itself. Banach-Tarski doesn't lead to a contradiction and isn't a paradox.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            of course it isn't, because it doesn't violate axioms of identity, addition, volume, etc

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >because it doesn't violate axioms of identity, addition, volume
            Those aren't axioms in standard mathematics. If you want to add some axioms that's fine but then Banach-Tarski would show that your new system was inconsistent if your axiom of volume works like I think it would. Or you could get rid of the axiom of choice that Banach-Tarski relies on. Either way you're no longer doing standard math and your new results wouldn't apply to Banach-Tarski.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you use predicate logic, then you have already assumed them. Standard mathematics is built on top of predicate logic. You can't use set theory without assuming the axiom of identity, in fact, sets would not contain unique elements if this axiom was violated, you would have a situation where two identical objects exist in the same set, spilling over into the realm of computer science.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you use predicate logic, then you have already assumed them
            Ah I get it you don't know what you're talking about. There is no assumed axiom of volume implicit in predicate logic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you have no clue what you are talking about do you, i am talking about identity, volume is built on top of arithmetic, which is built on top of identity axioms, etc, try to keep up

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            None of these are axioms. Way to show your ignorance of math, philosopleb.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What would you know about them if you think i am philosopher and you are not? You can't even see the contradiction in your own statement?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm a math Chad and therefore intellectually superior to philosocucks

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And yet doesn't even know his subject is built on the foundations laid down by philosocucks, and when something like russel's paradox happens, you patch up your rag like-foundations in fancy new names such as zfc and hope for the best, your subject is built on philosophical afterthoughts and you wonder why philosophy has no such constraints while peeking outside you tiny locked box screaming at the philosocucks to let you out.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Absolutely delusional.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Russell's "paradox" is not a paradox because it's meaningless nonsense. It's a pseudophilosophical language game, not a mathematical statement.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Huh? Russell's paradox is easy to define if you don't restrict set construction.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, it's a statement you can write down formally. But not every statement you can write down formally needs to make sense. It is implicit in naive set theory that the notion of a set containing or not containing itself is semantically garbage. Wittgenstein completely mogged and destroyed Russell.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >they are just an intermediate step towards real numbers
          Lol, no.

          >Is there anything more unphysical and ungeometric than a "square root of a negative number"? But you've been indoctrinated to accept that and to just shut up and calculate.
          Electrical engineer here. We use them a lot.

          I didn't call them useless. They are a good algebraic tool. But it is morally, aesthetically and epistemologically wrong to call them "numbers" or to pretend that they are basic points of geometry like real numbers are.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            negative numbers are not numbers, heck 0 is not a number according to your moronic geometric definition, neither are real numbers,

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't post a rigorous definition since this is a moral and epistemological issue. Of course negative numbers and in fact all real numbers are numbers and are perfectly geometric. I have no problem with cardinal, ordinal, hyperreal or surreal numbers either. P-adics are pretty based numbers, too. But the so called "complex numbers" are not.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But the so called "complex numbers" are not
            Quaternions on the other hand are totally legit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            nobody cares about morality in math chud, take this up with the vatican, this isn't even epistemology as much as its about your sensibilities about what numbers are, which is really metaphysics.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >nobody cares about morality in math chud
            Platonists do. Only formalist npcs are amoral.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yea i'm sure they are very influential in universities, these platonists, seeing how every math book from highschool to college teaches complex numbers

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Gauß ruined math. He coined the formalist "definition, theorem, proof" style and advocated against explaining intuition in math texts. He also invented the name "complex numbers".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            i'm pretty sure they existed in euler's time and proofs were done as way back as euclid and pythagoras so this isn't really accurate

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Alleged square roots of negatives were known at least back in the 14th century but weren't given a general name. Based Descartes introduced the term "imaginary" for the pseudoscalar i to emphasize how unnatural and ungeometric these objects are. It was Gauß who declared them to be "complex numbers". And please read more carefully. Of course Gauß didn't invent the concept of a proof. But he enforced the style of writing mathematical texts as minimalistic as possible, expressing contempt for any intuitive explanations. The reader according to Gauß isn't supposed to learn how the author arrived at a result, he shall only see a rigorous proof and nothing else.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They are numbers. You can do math with them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I can do math with triangles. Are triangles numbers now?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If there's a system for doing the 4 basic operations with triangles then yeah

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >4 basic operations
            You have a grade school view of math.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Meromorphic functions are a field. You can add, subtract, multiply and divide them. I guess that makes them numbers now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Functions collapse into numbers

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >numbers
            >moral and epistemological issue
            lmao, the absolute state of braindead zoomers and humanists

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Is there anything more unphysical and ungeometric than a "square root of a negative number"? But you've been indoctrinated to accept that and to just shut up and calculate.
        Electrical engineer here. We use them a lot.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >reddit spacing
        Nothing worth reading here.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I wrote a haiku for you. Please r8 and appreci8.

          Oh no, a blank line

          This guy must be from reddit

          Your day is ruined

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            reddit/10

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Is there anything more unphysical and ungeometric than a "square root of a negative number"?
        I hate that too. But to be fair, the entire universe is apparently unphysical ungeometric bullshit at a small enough level.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    most working mathematicians are either platonists (in which case ZFC doesn't matter because it's just a manifestation of the ideal) or social constuctivists (in which case ZFC doesn't matter because it's made up). analytics tend to reject these two positions, since the former is hard to advocate and the latter is antithetical to the analytic way of thought. in other words, it's autism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you morons attribute every metaphysical object to plato when it was the cult of pythagoras that believed numbers were real. How is that platonic, and even trying to claim geometric shapes exist beyond the material world could be, if you stretched it a bit, attributed to euclid. Both of these men came before plato. If anything, metaphysics should be pythagorean and not platonic.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >"Platonists" in mathematics

    Aristotle blew this idea out 2,000 years ago. Of course numbers are abstract and we can manipulate them in our minds and idealize them, but the idea that there is a number apart from a thing that is numbered does not stand up to a lot of scrutiny. Most mathematicians don't care about philosophy, they just say "hey this stuff seems real, it's probably really out there, guess that makes me a Platonist lol" but they don't think it through.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Literally one month before my 20th birthday I got a 16 year old gf and got to experience teen love by the skin of my teeth. She would sing me to sleep in her arms and give me the most amazing head, but she also cheated on me, threw razor blades at me, destroyed my stuff, and informed me that when we first met, God had verbally instructed her to date me. Last I heard, she has been institutionalized and the state took her new baby away.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      based schizo teen gf, you have given me an idea for a story

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Lay it on us, what will the story be? As I alluded to before, she used to be essentially bipolar, sometimes she would be sweet, caring, and loving, and others she would be a total b***h with explosions of violence and anger. Although, even when we had had a fight, she used to phone me later and leave a voice message where she would sing one of our songs to me so I would know we were still okay (a tiny bit toxic/manipulative in retrospect but very touching).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          why did you break up?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            She cheated on me a month or so into our relationship (this just happened to be 2 days before my 20th birthday). I was devastated and deeply hurt and couldn't believe she had done this, and for about a week I was a total wreck swinging between hating her passionately and desperately wanting her back. There have been a couple times like this in my life which is such a weird phenomenon to describe, it's like time dilates and your mind betrays you into obsessing over something and you can't break away. Anyway, we did end up getting back together and dated for about 5 months after that before I decided things had run their course and I broke up with her. What's also weird is that we were dating long distance, I would take a ferry and a bus to go see her every weekend, and the last time we saw each other had a weird feeling hanging over it that it would be the last time (I cried on the ferry back), but I actually broke up with her on the phone a few days later. I may as well add in also, we met on Omegle (I used to spend literally hundreds of hours on there and would add people occasionally to a burner FB account). We had been FB friends for about a year, not really talking much, before sparking things off and finally my going to meet her for the first time. Needless to say, my teen years were very odd, but as I've gotten older I've become much more socially savvy and am now in a happy stable relationship (I also met my current gf online, on OkCupid).

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because they are larping pseuds. Picking up some buzzwords from foundational math and then vehemently expressing a dogmatic opinion is just low hanging fruits, something a smart high schooler can do by superficially reading wikipedia. Of course their LARP only works as long as they talk to non-mathematicians. Their illusion of intellectual superiority is immediately destroyed once you ask them an actual math question.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Whew lucky. Feel sorry for some of you guys.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A few years after my gf broke up with me she was struggling in university and as an excuse for her bad performance she simply claimed that she was raped. Fortunately she didn't claim that it was me who raped her, it was 2 years after we stopped dating. She later admitted the lie, so it definitely didn't happen.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    an article that shits on men? WOW so brave

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you people are all fricking idiots

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *