NationStates Jolt Archive

Math is the demonic subject of the world. Its so retarted, a bunchof numbers and symboly and graphs and charts and demonic teachers, im presently making a 70something in my Algebra 1 class(and yes i posted smart on the intelligence poll b/c of my other subjects) and i hate that class. wat you peoples think about math?:mad:

Math is the alphabet that God used to write the Universe.

It's quite interesting, actually.

Math is the demonic subject of the world. Its so retarted, a bunchof numbers and symboly and graphs and charts and demonic teachers, im presently making a 70something in my Algebra 1 class(and yes i posted smart on the intelligence poll b/c of my other subjects) and i hate that class. wat you peoples think about math?:mad:
Math is teh rox. I'm pulling of 83's in math 12 and calculus 12, while being something of a slacker(I lead both classes in NHI's and days missed).

*fuming* i cant hear you.. social studies is so much more interesting

If it weren't so remedial I can sleep through it and ace the tests. Perhaps calculus will change that.

Eh I hate math too, but in this day and age you got to know at least Algebra to get by. I'm a history guy myself.

While I have no particular gift for math, I enjoy it a great deal.

Perhaps you just haven't found the field of mathematics that you'll find most compelling.

Endure algebra and trigonometry for now, and you may find that you enjoy calculus; or perhaps discrete mathematics will strike your fancy.

You only reason why you think that it is evil is because you suck at it, no offense. If you were good at it, then we wouldn't have you hear about your problem.

*fuming* i cant hear you.. social studies is so much more interesting
You need math for those.

You only reason why you think that it is evil is because you suck at it, no offense. If you were good at it, then we wouldn't have you hear about your problem.
yes thats probably true...although ive done well every year in math except for this retarted 8th grade year

yes thats probably true...although ive done well every year in math except for this retarted 8th grade year

It's about to get a lot more difficult...

yes thats probably true...although ive done well every year in math except for this retarted 8th grade year

That's because things before Algebra are pretty easy.

goedels incompleteness theorem destroyed my hope of uncovering the final truth through math.

always had problems with maths. its like another language to me... one i don't understand. some people can read it and understand it, use it... people like me just can't.
i'm dyslexic (like i said on the other thread) and have some form of dyscalculia in that a) i can't remember my times tables even, b) i can't deal with or remember mathematical patterns (which extends to music unfortunatley), and c) i can come up with a whole bunch of different answers to the same mathematical problem; i just don't remember mathematical principles, no matter how many times i practice them. understand it and practice it one day, totally forgotten the next. my mind is like a mathematical sponge :(

however, i do possess the logical ability to use maths as long as i don't have to do the actual calculations... like making big, complex excel sheets and the like, working out the logical relations the numbers have with each other and using that to produce a result.

i suppose, therefore, you could say i'm ok with practical maths, just not theoretical crap (the likes of which they teach in the classroom :rolleyes: )

math.. i got through it and never have to take another math class in my life.. ever.. ever.. ever !! !! !! :)

I love math, and you want to know why? because there are no "in your own opinion" questions, no judgement calls, no monday morning quarterbacks. It's the same, it will always be the same, it's dependable, it's verifiable, it's math. :)

yes thats probably true...although ive done well every year in math except for this retarted 8th grade year

I think part of your problem may be in your mindset. The math itself isn't retarded; in fact, when examined carefully, you may find that a lot of it demonstrates a consistency, symmetry, and utility that compares well with any other field of study.

Ease up your adversarial resistance, be diligent in the excercises, and be patient.

If, in the end, its just not your forte, your time in practice should leave you with at least a servicable ability.

M47h 15 73h 1337!!!

Seriously, math, while some topics or methods are sometimes anal and pointless, is generally interesting. It and physics (which viewed one way is a subdivision of math) are the logical language that describes the universe! Unlike other subjects, it's logical, objective, and can be broken down, manipulated, etc.

I'm a great writer - not conceit, I just am - but it's partially because I have a math-like approach to language. Every word is a symbol, and every grammatical constraint is a rule. The meaning of a sentence is the desired result, and the best sentence is the most elegant arrangement of the symbols that best expresses the result, according to the rules. It may sound crazy, but in combination with an intuitive grammar-sense, its results have gotten me rave reviews from my teachers. The lesson? Math and logic are the basis for everything and are the only true universal language.

goedels incompleteness theorem destroyed my hope of uncovering the final truth through math.

Glad someone else mentioned Godel before I did.

I love math, and you want to know why? because there are no "in your own opinion" questions, no judgement calls, no monday morning quarterbacks. It's the same, it will always be the same, it's dependable, it's verifiable, it's math. :)
That one of my favorite parts of it. In chemisty last year, when my teacher said "For the rest of the year this class will be all math" me and the two kids beside me said "All right, Math! There will only be one right answer!"

I love math, and you want to know why? because there are no "in your own opinion" questions, no judgement calls, no monday morning quarterbacks. It's the same, it will always be the same, it's dependable, it's verifiable, it's math. :)
gah, thats exactly what i don't like about it... there's no room for individuality, no expression, no substance, no options, no soul... its cold and logical and thats all there is to it.

gah, thats exactly what i don't like about it... there's no room for individuality, no expression, no substance, no options, no soul... its cold and logical and thats all there is to it.
my individuality got me into trouble in school though, math was one class that I could stay out of trouble in (most of the time)

I love math, and you want to know why? because there are no "in your own opinion" questions, no judgement calls, no monday morning quarterbacks. It's the same, it will always be the same, it's dependable, it's verifiable, it's math. :)

Hear, hear!

I've yet to find anything quite like the feeling I get from a correctly and elegantly derived solution to a math or physics problem. :)

gah, thats exactly what i don't like about it... there's no room for individuality, no expression, no substance, no options, no soul... its cold and logical and thats all there is to it.

On the other hand, every single option and opinion you ever come up with, as well as which you choose, and exactly what you say about it, can theoretically be derived by logical-mathematical analysis, given total needed knowledge. It's causal determinism: the dice roll isn't random, it's the perfect and exact result of the atmospheric conditions, the twist of your hand, the surface of the table, etc. The twist of your hand is a result of its previous position and your mental processes. Etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Can social studies do that?

gah, thats exactly what i don't like about it... there's no room for individuality, no expression, no substance, no options, no soul... its cold and logical and thats all there is to it.
Of course there is. How you arrive to the solution is where it's at. Take architecture, all buildings are solutions to mathematical problems. The reflections in a soap bubble all follow strict mathematical laws.

I love math, and you want to know why? because there are no "in your own opinion" questions, no judgement calls, no monday morning quarterbacks. It's the same, it will always be the same, it's dependable, it's verifiable, it's math. :)
That's the exact reason why I love math (and Chem) so much and hate English and History. I find math and science to be much more practical than any other subjects. Algebra, at least the algebra I learned in middle school, (I'm currently in 2nd year honors algebra, which is much more complex) is really simple; all it is is memorizing a few rules and realizing where to apply them. Just study a little harder and you'll have an A. ;)

On the other hand, every single option and opinion you ever come up with, as well as which you choose, and exactly what you say about it, can theoretically be derived by logical-mathematical analysis, given total needed knowledge. It's causal determinism: the dice roll isn't random, it's the perfect and exact result of the atmospheric conditions, the twist of your hand, the surface of the table, etc. The twist of your hand is a result of its previous position and your mental processes. Etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Can social studies do that?
interesting, yes, but pointless.

ah, i could never be an academic :p


Of course there is. How you arrive to the solution is where it's at. Take architecture, all buildings are solutions to mathematical problems. The reflections in a soap bubble all follow strict mathematical laws.
i prefer to appreciate the expressive aesthetics and visual interpretation of architecture or the reflections in a soap bubble, myself

maths is creating that, yes, but definatley not the kind of maths i was ever taught. the kind of maths i had to learn was abstract, useless, and utterly unexpressive and restrictive

my individuality got me into trouble in school though, math was one class that I could stay out of trouble in (most of the time)
hehe fair enough

i was generally a good boy... just never gave a shit about maths :P

No bones about it, Math sucked in school. Ditto applied Physics. But what I really did twig to was Geometry, especially Cartesian (three dimensional - x/y/z axes) space. Nowadays, I make my living working in four dimensional space building and animating 3D models. And I was perhaps the singlemost erm... enthusiastic recreational drug user of my alma mater.

And that's why Math was so frickin' cool. Even though I hated it, learning how to make it work for me has allowed me to maintain my demonseed lifestyle well into my 30s.

That's the exact reason why I love math (and Chem) so much and hate English and History. I find math and science to be much more practical than any other subjects. Algebra, at least the algebra I learned in middle school, (I'm currently in 2nd year honors algebra, which is much more complex) is really simple; all it is is memorizing a few rules and realizing where to apply them. Just study a little harder and you'll have an A. ;)
some people love just following rules

others prefer to make their own and feel trapped by them

maths is creating that, yes, but definatley not the kind of maths i was ever taught. the kind of maths i had to learn was abstract, useless, and utterly unexpressive and restrictive
Well, yeah. Most teachers suck at teaching math, mostly because they don't love it, they just got stuck teaching it.

some people love just following rules

others prefer to make their own and feel trapped by them
Guess I'm the latter, but I don't feel trapped in any way.

I don't like math, either but at least learn to spell!!

On the other hand, every single option and opinion you ever come up with, as well as which you choose, and exactly what you say about it, can theoretically be derived by logical-mathematical analysis, given total needed knowledge. It's causal determinism: the dice roll isn't random, it's the perfect and exact result of the atmospheric conditions, the twist of your hand, the surface of the table, etc. The twist of your hand is a result of its previous position and your mental processes. Etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Ergo free will is an illusion and the final state of the cosmos was determined in its initial state?

Was the initial state random, or itself determined?

Ergo free will is an illusion and the final state of the cosmos was determined in its initial state?

Was the initial state random, or itself determined?
I'm going with 'random'. I need a reason to get up in the mornings.

I'm going with 'random'. I need a reason to get up in the mornings.

Hang on, we haven't got to the interesting bit yet:

If the world is completely describable and explicable by maths, then what privileges the cosmos we inhabit, compared to other possible universes?

In other words, where in maths do we find any notion of reference?

As maths is an axiomatic system, is the cosmos, which can be completely described by maths, also an axiomatic system?

Ergo free will is an illusion and the final state of the cosmos was determined in its initial state?

Was the initial state random, or itself determined?
Well, there is still quantum physics to consider, were its not this will happen, then this, but rather this has a 90% chance of happening and if it does this will have a 67% chance of happening.

Well, there is still quantum physics to consider, were its not this will happen, then this, but rather this has a 90% chance of happening and if it does this will have a 67% chance of happening.

Indeed, but I'm more concerned with Free Mercantile States's vision of the cosmos, rather than the actual state of the real cosmos here.

Either i suck at math, or math sucks. probaly both. Stupid math.

Math is pretty awesome, cuz I own everyone at it. First in my class(not gradewise, but weve settled our disputes and all agreed that im the best).
Thegreat thing about math is that its consistent(unless you're working out of that dreadful CPM book, which is self-contradictory) and never involves too much thinking, and is very abstract.

I alsow like it cuz I get to talk all the time during class in there

No bones about it, Math sucked in school. Ditto applied Physics. But what I really did twig to was Geometry, especially Cartesian (three dimensional - x/y/z axes) space. Nowadays, I make my living working in four dimensional space building and animating 3D models. And I was perhaps the singlemost erm... enthusiastic recreational drug user of my alma mater.

And that's why Math was so frickin' cool. Even though I hated it, learning how to make it work for me has allowed me to maintain my demonseed lifestyle well into my 30s.

This supports my personal theory. The way education systems have developed over the years they have unfortunately attempted to divide up a unified edifice of knowledge. For instance; history, literature, and mathematics are all part of the same entity. Mathematics is the system of logic. Literature & the sciences are examples of the application of that system of logic. History is the results of the application of that system of logic. When this pool of information is divided against itself, each subject in and of itself can seem pointless. Only when they are correctly strung together can an individual hope to see the importance in each.

Ergo free will is an illusion and the final state of the cosmos was determined in its initial state?

Was the initial state random, or itself determined?

Big question....

Also, it isn't necessarily incompatible with free will. It's all in how you view the concept of "free will". Personally, I'm a compatibilist.

Well, there is still quantum physics to consider, were its not this will happen, then this, but rather this has a 90% chance of happening and if it does this will have a 67% chance of happening.

That's only from our limited frame of reference, though. The movement of electrons isn't actually random - it just can't appear any other way to an observer, giving rise to the weirdness of that level. Given a theoretical absolute-knowledge point of view, though, it's still causally deterministic.

Literature & the sciences are examples of the application of that system of logic.


Oh Rose, thou art sick!
The invisible worm
That flies in the night,
In the howling storm
Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy.
And with his dark secret love,
does thy life destroy.

This was an application of the system of logic brought to you by The Mullattoes.

Big question....

Which one?

Also, it isn't necessarily incompatible with free will. It's all in how you view the concept of "free will". Personally, I'm a compatibilist.

Ah, but that just tangles you with chains of causality... to say nothing of the inability of maths to determine whether causality does itself exist.

If the world is completely describable and explicable by maths, then what privileges the cosmos we inhabit, compared to other possible universes?

Nothing, besides the fact that we're the ones observing it. Anthropic reasoning. This universe evolved observers, and we are they. If we exist, then the only universe we can observe is one fine-tuned to support us.

In other words, where in maths do we find any notion of reference?

Hehe, that's what Einstein was asking a century ago and look where it got him....

As maths is an axiomatic system, is the cosmos, which can be completely described by maths, also an axiomatic system?

That's basically what I was saying with causal determinism.

Hang on, we haven't got to the interesting bit yet:

If the world is completely describable and explicable by maths, then what privileges the cosmos we inhabit, compared to other possible universes?

In other words, where in maths do we find any notion of reference?

As maths is an axiomatic system, is the cosmos, which can be completely described by maths, also an axiomatic system?
Well, I mostly build 3D environments, and it is quite true that the entire world is describable. Explaining it, however... well, that's usually where we run into trouble.

What privileges the cosmos we inhabit? I'm not so sure anything does privilege it, in particular. But is this the same cosmos we inhabit, from moment to moment? Could we not in fact be cycling through an infinite number of cosmos that all appear to us to be the same universe, experienced in one linear manner? (I'm thinking of Kurt Vonneguts' Tralfamadorians who perceived human beings as four-dimensional worm creatures, here)

I think we are, at the moment, anyway, still incapable of seeing the really, really big picture that's sitting right under our noses, 'cause we have yet to evolve the perceptual senses required for us to do so.

Oh Rose, thou art sick!
The invisible worm
That flies in the night,
In the howling storm
Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy.
And with his dark secret love,
does thy life destroy.

This was an application of the system of logic brought to you by The Mullattoes.

Whoever wrote this crap obviously thought that there was a point in writing it. When I call mathematics a system of logic I do not mean a system of logic in absolute numerical terms. I mean to describe mathematics more as a way of thinking. Whether something is logical or not depends ENTIRELY on an individual's definition of logic; even if that definition runs against the vast majority's consensus of opinion about what it means to be "logical".

What privileges the cosmos we inhabit? I'm not so sure anything does privilege it, in particular.

Sorry, I didn't make myself too clear there, did I?

If we assume that this cosmos is completely describable by maths, then we can equally assume that other cosmoses are also completely describable by maths. Thus we could create a possibly infinite set of different mathematical descriptions of cosmoses.

What makes the particular mathematical description of the cosmos which we inhabit special?

Sorry, I didn't make myself too clear there, did I?

If we assume that this cosmos is completely describable by maths, then we can equally assume that other cosmoses are also completely describable by maths. Thus we could create a possibly infinite set of different mathematical descriptions of cosmoses.

What makes the particular mathematical description of the cosmos which we inhabit special?

Nothing, besides the fact that it's a stable system. Why does our universe have to be somehow special? Though I suppose it depends on whether you subscribe to multiple universes theory or not.

Whoever wrote this crap obviously thought that there was a point in writing it.


This just in: Blake wrote 'crap'. Pictures at eleven.

Oh Rose, thou art sick!
The invisible worm
That flies in the night,
In the howling storm
Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy.
And with his dark secret love,
does thy life destroy.

This was an application of the system of logic brought to you by The Mullattoes.

Oh yes; and damn you for casting me into the world of the poetry of William Blake.

Nothing, besides the fact that it's a stable system. Why does our universe have to be somehow special? Though I suppose it depends on whether you subscribe to multiple universes theory or not.

Our universe doesn't need to be somehow special at all, but the fact that this particular mathematical expression references our real cosmos is something special, compared to all those other mathematical expressions which describe only possible universes.

Anyhow... to go back to your original claim that it is theoretically possible to entirely describe the cosmos in mathematical form - the theory obviously breaks down when you ask what material or mechanism is going to be used to describe the cosmos... it must itself be contained within the cosmos.

Sorry, I didn't make myself too clear there, did I?

If we assume that this cosmos is completely describable by maths, then we can equally assume that other cosmoses are also completely describable by maths. Thus we could create a possibly infinite set of different mathematical descriptions of cosmoses.

What makes the particular mathematical description of the cosmos which we inhabit special?
Well, here's my crappy reply. I'm going to bed after this, so g'night all. Wish I could stay for more.

I guess what I'm saying is, we all exert (and for that matter, everything in the universe exerts) a certain limited amount of push and pull on everything else in the universe. Will I spill my coffee or drink it, will you scratch that minor itch on your nose or ignore it, will a given star collapse in Orion - each event will change the Universe to one extent or another.

I don't think we inhabit one particular mathematical description of the cosmos. I think that what we are experiencing, in a linear fashion, is an infinite set of different mathematical descriptions of cosmoses, that change with every event, big and small, in a dynamic manner. We can't perceive these changes in any meaningful way, except that I might enjoy my coffee while you relieve that itchy nose. It's like a flipbook animation, but instead of having frames arranged in a timed sequence, the frames are event dependent.

And it's because we experience time in a linear fashion that we are limited as to our perceptions of our transit through it. That's what makes it seem to us as though we're living in one universe.

I'm getting tired, and I'm not writing well. Seeya.

I don't think we inhabit one particular mathematical description of the cosmos. I think that what we are experiencing, in a linear fashion, is an infinite set of different mathematical descriptions of cosmoses, that change with every event, big and small, in a dynamic manner. We can't perceive these changes in any meaningful way, except that I might enjoy my coffee while you relieve that itchy nose. It's like a flipbook animation, but instead of having frames arranged in a timed sequence, the frames are event dependent.

So time is comprised of quanta?

So time is comprised of quanta?
Time, passage of time, is non-linear by nature, but our perception of it forces it into linear structure. Well, that's how I think of it, anyway.

*edit: really should be sleeping. talk tomorrow? was just getting really interested...

I guess what I'm saying is, we all exert (and for that matter, everything in the universe exerts) a certain limited amount of push and pull on everything else in the universe. Will I spill my coffee or drink it, will you scratch that minor itch on your nose or ignore it, will a given star collapse in Orion - each event will change the Universe to one extent or another.
It sounds like you're starting to talk about chaos theory here.
And it's because we experience time in a linear fashion that we are limited as to our perceptions of our transit through it. That's what makes it seem to us as though we're living in one universe.
Perhaps the reason we experience time in a linear fashon is because we are in constant motion. It has been proven that time is directly related to velocity, and earth is constantly revolving around the sun. What would happen, I wonder, if a person were to leave Earth and completely stop moving. Would time stop for that person; as he ages; would everything else remain exactly the same? Or would completely stopping be impossible, because our universe might actually be in motion?

Perhaps the reason we experience time in a linear fashon is because we are in constant motion. It has been proven that time is directly related to velocity, and earth is constantly revolving around the sun.

Meh. Velocity is also measured in time, thus youa re just setting up another time (t2) which you claim could explain our experience of time (t1). I assume that we'd also need another time (t3) to explain t2, etc...

Meh. Velocity is also measured in time, thus youa re just setting up another time (t2) which you claim could explain our experience of time (t1). I assume that we'd also need another time (t3) to explain t2, etc...
Not at all. Time and velocity are just interrelated. Normally, we would assume that time always remains constant, and it will always seem that unless it was observed and compared by two bodies at two very different velocities.


Moving at a slow velocity, a scientist could set up a line graph that shows his velocity.

Moving at a high velocity, a second scientist could set up a second line graph that shows his velocity.

The first scientist, observing the second, would experience time at a slower rate than the second (being at a lower velocity) and it would seem to the first that the second is moving faster than it would say on the second graph. Likewise, the second, experiencing time at a faster rate, would say that the first scientist is moving slower than it would say on the first graph.

So, to truely describe velocity, you would need a 3D graph, one axis showing distance, another showing time, and one last one showing rate of time. Still, you would only have t1.

This supports my personal theory. The way education systems have developed over the years they have unfortunately attempted to divide up a unified edifice of knowledge. For instance; history, literature, and mathematics are all part of the same entity. Mathematics is the system of logic. Literature & the sciences are examples of the application of that system of logic. History is the results of the application of that system of logic. When this pool of information is divided against itself, each subject in and of itself can seem pointless. Only when they are correctly strung together can an individual hope to see the importance in each.

Interestingly enough, philosophy students at my university were actually required to take a series of math courses on logic. These were not three introductory courses, they were upper-division and pretty highly theoretical. My friend, who majored in philosophy, took these courses and found them fascinating, despite the fact that she hates other math classes with a passion. She said it helped her a lot with her approach to philosophy, and tried to use what she learned in those courses as the basis for her analyses, papers and whatnot. Go figure.

Ah, math is just lovely. I don't go in for all these practical maths though. Give me a nice number theory problem, or discrete logic, or perhaps even a proof or two - preferably in non-euclidean geometry. I like math because it is logical. It always makes sense, and you don't have to interpret it to see what it means. It just means. There is one correct answer, and either you have it, or you don't. Ahhh... a comfortable territory.

I personnaly love maths. Not for the actual results, which are usefull, but nothing more, but for the process of maths. It teaches you intelectual rigor, logic, and incremental building, all at once.

It's also sometimes really wondeful, when you do some advanced maths (well, even moderatly advanced maths as I did), there is a really a lot of esthetism inside the structure of maths.