4 ms·

> Formal systems like [...] mathematics [...] do depend on a certain style of thinking, but I don't think it's especially hard or deep. I'm awaiting your proof

> Formal systems like [...] mathematics [...] do depend on a certain style of thinking, but I don't think it's especially hard or deep. I'm awaiting your proof on whether P is equal to NP.

jampekka 3y ago
Why? At least I'm not waiting for mathematicians to e.g. negotiate peace in middle-east, produce a room temperature superconductor or raise a well functioning triplet. (Obviously me doing those is even more unlikely than me doing P=?NP, but I'm not sure how I'm involved here.)
- Tainnor 3y ago
  Don't you see the issue with claiming that "mathematics is shallow and simplistic", but then not being able to follow up on that claim by actually solving one of the most famous open mathematical problems? If it were shallow and simplistic, any moderately intelligent person would be able to do it - yet decades of world-class mathematicians have failed to produce a proof.
  - jampekka 3y ago
    I did not mean shallow and simplistic in a way that any moderately intelligent person would be able to do it. Also all (most) mathematics is not P=?NP level stuff. Especially being simplistic (unambiguous, mechanistic) is a feature for what mathematics is used for.
    - Tainnor 3y ago
      > Also all (most) mathematics is not P=?NP level stuff. The list of open mathematical problems is as varied as it is vast. But even going beyond that, it's clearly evident (e.g. by considering drop-out rates of technical degrees) that most people seem to be having a really hard time even with comparatively elementary mathematics. > Especially being simplistic (unambiguous, mechanistic) is a feature for what mathematics is used for. I'll give you "unambiguous" up to a point (there's still enough debate about which axioms are the "correct" ones, though). But "mechanistic" is plainly wrong. The set of true theorems (e.g. of ZFC) is famously undecidable, so there can be no algorithm that can capture all of mathematics.
    - xcv123 3y ago
      All you are saying is that you have been been working on trivial software systems and haven't been exposed to anything particularly large scale or complex so far in your career. Also you must be confusing basic arithmetic (1+1=2) with mathematics in general. Go read some papers on deep learning architectures or learn about the Fourier Transform then come back and tell us how shallow and simple it is. Mathematics requires the most sophisticated and deep thinking that the human species is capable of. Very few humans have the raw intellectual capacity required for being a productive mathematician.

> Formal systems like [...] mathematics [...] do depend on a certain style of thinking, but I don't think it's especially hard or deep. I'm awaiting your proof on whether P is equal to NP.

jampekka 3y ago

Why? At least I'm not waiting for mathematicians to e.g. negotiate peace in middle-east, produce a room temperature superconductor or raise a well functioning triplet. (Obviously me doing those is even more unlikely than me doing P=?NP, but I'm not sure how I'm involved here.)

Tainnor 3y ago
Don't you see the issue with claiming that "mathematics is shallow and simplistic", but then not being able to follow up on that claim by actually solving one of the most famous open mathematical problems? If it were shallow and simplistic, any moderately intelligent person would be able to do it - yet decades of world-class mathematicians have failed to produce a proof.
- jampekka 3y ago
  I did not mean shallow and simplistic in a way that any moderately intelligent person would be able to do it. Also all (most) mathematics is not P=?NP level stuff. Especially being simplistic (unambiguous, mechanistic) is a feature for what mathematics is used for.
  - Tainnor 3y ago
    > Also all (most) mathematics is not P=?NP level stuff. The list of open mathematical problems is as varied as it is vast. But even going beyond that, it's clearly evident (e.g. by considering drop-out rates of technical degrees) that most people seem to be having a really hard time even with comparatively elementary mathematics. > Especially being simplistic (unambiguous, mechanistic) is a feature for what mathematics is used for. I'll give you "unambiguous" up to a point (there's still enough debate about which axioms are the "correct" ones, though). But "mechanistic" is plainly wrong. The set of true theorems (e.g. of ZFC) is famously undecidable, so there can be no algorithm that can capture all of mathematics.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    All you are saying is that you have been been working on trivial software systems and haven't been exposed to anything particularly large scale or complex so far in your career. Also you must be confusing basic arithmetic (1+1=2) with mathematics in general. Go read some papers on deep learning architectures or learn about the Fourier Transform then come back and tell us how shallow and simple it is. Mathematics requires the most sophisticated and deep thinking that the human species is capable of. Very few humans have the raw intellectual capacity required for being a productive mathematician.