3 ms·

> But the hard part is convincing other mathematicians to care. My point is that whether other mathematicians care or not is completely irrelevant and doesn't

> But the hard part is convincing other mathematicians to care. My point is that whether other mathematicians care or not is completely irrelevant and doesn't subtract from mathematics' power of predicting phenomena in the real world. Each and every mathematical theory has to be consistent with basic rules of reality - if nothing else, symbolic manipulation relies on basic arithmetic and set theory. Without symbolic manipulation, you can't even express all those "abstract" mathematics - to say that "abstract" mathematics can not have correspondence to the real world is completely false, because of this basic connection. Now that I think about it - claiming that "mathematics is a social consensus" is exactly what I'd expect from a mathematics professor - a person whose whole life is isolated from reality, limited to the rigid structure of academia, and whose whole existence depends on other people caring. I doubt there is a single (professional) engineer that would say something like that.

ethanwillis 4y ago
version_five 4y ago
Reading the discussion, I think you're both right. There is a common sense notion of mathematics that exists independent of what people want to believe or agree upon. There are also ways to philosophize about the nature of things in order to frame math as a human construct. I think both views can be simultaneously correct
jxdxbx 4y ago
You can construct a formal system with any axioms you choose. It is not arbitrary that some of these systems turn out to be useful in modeling the world. But there are other systems that are only dry exercises in symbol manipulation that may be of little use to physics or engineering. Or of course they might end up being super important 100 years later. But in the meantime mathematicians might be interested in them anyway.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gilbert_vanova 4y ago
> I doubt there is a single (professional) engineer that would say something like that. I suspect an engineering professor would be even more compelled to highlight how social consensus is the foundation of everything else that follows. You only have to read the surface layers of this or that performance debate to see how it is unfortunately the case. "Performance" is a fluid term that doesn't mean much of anything on its own -- and people arguing that they've juiced another drop of performance juice from this or that application's fruit are often just talking past each other in terms of priorities or perspective. The symbolic manipulation at the heart of mathematics is a byproduct of language -- another system beholden to social consensus. It's inescapable.

ethanwillis 4y ago

version_five 4y ago

Reading the discussion, I think you're both right. There is a common sense notion of mathematics that exists independent of what people want to believe or agree upon. There are also ways to philosophize about the nature of things in order to frame math as a human construct. I think both views can be simultaneously correct

jxdxbx 4y ago

You can construct a formal system with any axioms you choose. It is not arbitrary that some of these systems turn out to be useful in modeling the world. But there are other systems that are only dry exercises in symbol manipulation that may be of little use to physics or engineering. Or of course they might end up being super important 100 years later. But in the meantime mathematicians might be interested in them anyway.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

gilbert_vanova 4y ago

> I doubt there is a single (professional) engineer that would say something like that. I suspect an engineering professor would be even more compelled to highlight how social consensus is the foundation of everything else that follows. You only have to read the surface layers of this or that performance debate to see how it is unfortunately the case. "Performance" is a fluid term that doesn't mean much of anything on its own -- and people arguing that they've juiced another drop of performance juice from this or that application's fruit are often just talking past each other in terms of priorities or perspective. The symbolic manipulation at the heart of mathematics is a byproduct of language -- another system beholden to social consensus. It's inescapable.