4 ms·

Be careful in mixing popular culture and mathematics.

adamnemecek 8y ago
I've heard this before however I disagree. In fact I would argue that most of the people I really admire don't put mathematics on a pedestal but instead treat is as just another human endeavor and as such can be compared with other human endeavors.
- theoh 8y ago
  If it's Marx's thought that's being referred to as "popular culture", that's a pretty inaccurate characterisation. It's bona fide political philosophy and/or political economy. Even a soft, humanities subject like political philosophy, can, unexpectedly, be a topic for mathematical study, e.g. Arrow's theorem. You're right not to believe in policing disciplinary boundaries. I think the problem here is more that you haven't demonstrated just how Marx's thought resembles linear logic, so the idea might seem a little crazy, maybe a product of an idée fixe. If it's not something mathematicians would be impressed by (in terms of rigour or depth), and not something Marxists care about (in terms of philosophical implications) it's not going to lead anywhere.
  - adamnemecek 8y ago
    Did you read the link on dialectical materialism? > It's bona fide political philosophy and/or political economy. It’s above all a description of development of science.
  - mikorym 8y ago
    For that particular point, yes, a demonstration would suffice.
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    It's pain to learn one must take care to avoid confusing math with everything else. Unexpectedly, sure. Safe languages...sentimentality. Thought processes... everything it can be compared against. Here be dragons, tedious caution required.
    - adamnemecek 8y ago
      > It's pain to learn one must take care to avoid confusing math with everything else. Why not?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - s-shellfish 8y ago
        It's easy to get them flipped around. Inside of mind versus the outside. Axiom of choice, choosing the right thoughts to have versus to speak. If you don't understand, you don't want to. It's a perpetual type of terror that often has nothing to do with reality, but you can never be sure.
        adamnemecek 8y ago
        I have no clue what you are talking about I'm sorry.
        s-shellfish 8y ago
        Yup. That's why.
  - adamnemecek 8y ago
    > Even a soft, humanities subject like political philosophy, can, unexpectedly, be a topic for mathematical study, e.g. Arrow's theorem. I'm aware but idk how this is relevant. > If it's not something mathematicians would be impressed by (in terms of rigour or depth), and not something Marxists care about (in terms of philosophical implications) it's not going to lead anywhere. I don't care? I'm not trying to impress anyone and I don't care what Marxists care about.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mikorym 8y ago
  I don't think this point has to do with the "mathematical pedestal", but rather, mathematics should be precise. What I mean is not to philosophise in a manner in which disperate concepts are equated.
s-shellfish 8y ago
"Proofs of programs are too boring for the social process of mathematics to work." - Richard Demillo, Richard Lipton, and Alan Perlis, 1979 "... So don't rely on social processes for verification" - David Dill, 1999

I've heard this before however I disagree. In fact I would argue that most of the people I really admire don't put mathematics on a pedestal but instead treat is as just another human endeavor and as such can be compared with other human endeavors.

theoh 8y ago
If it's Marx's thought that's being referred to as "popular culture", that's a pretty inaccurate characterisation. It's bona fide political philosophy and/or political economy. Even a soft, humanities subject like political philosophy, can, unexpectedly, be a topic for mathematical study, e.g. Arrow's theorem. You're right not to believe in policing disciplinary boundaries. I think the problem here is more that you haven't demonstrated just how Marx's thought resembles linear logic, so the idea might seem a little crazy, maybe a product of an idée fixe. If it's not something mathematicians would be impressed by (in terms of rigour or depth), and not something Marxists care about (in terms of philosophical implications) it's not going to lead anywhere.
- adamnemecek 8y ago
  Did you read the link on dialectical materialism? > It's bona fide political philosophy and/or political economy. It’s above all a description of development of science.
- mikorym 8y ago
  For that particular point, yes, a demonstration would suffice.
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  It's pain to learn one must take care to avoid confusing math with everything else. Unexpectedly, sure. Safe languages...sentimentality. Thought processes... everything it can be compared against. Here be dragons, tedious caution required.
  - adamnemecek 8y ago
    > It's pain to learn one must take care to avoid confusing math with everything else. Why not?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - s-shellfish 8y ago
      It's easy to get them flipped around. Inside of mind versus the outside. Axiom of choice, choosing the right thoughts to have versus to speak. If you don't understand, you don't want to. It's a perpetual type of terror that often has nothing to do with reality, but you can never be sure.
      - adamnemecek 8y ago
        I have no clue what you are talking about I'm sorry.
        s-shellfish 8y ago
        Yup. That's why.
- adamnemecek 8y ago
  > Even a soft, humanities subject like political philosophy, can, unexpectedly, be a topic for mathematical study, e.g. Arrow's theorem. I'm aware but idk how this is relevant. > If it's not something mathematicians would be impressed by (in terms of rigour or depth), and not something Marxists care about (in terms of philosophical implications) it's not going to lead anywhere. I don't care? I'm not trying to impress anyone and I don't care what Marxists care about.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mikorym 8y ago
I don't think this point has to do with the "mathematical pedestal", but rather, mathematics should be precise. What I mean is not to philosophise in a manner in which disperate concepts are equated.

s-shellfish 8y ago

"Proofs of programs are too boring for the social process of mathematics to work." - Richard Demillo, Richard Lipton, and Alan Perlis, 1979 "... So don't rely on social processes for verification" - David Dill, 1999