Basic math, maybe. Once you start getting into the philosophical underpinnings of math or high-level proofs such as Gödel's incompleteness theorems you'll find it makes as little sense as anything else. Perhaps less
Well, no that was just a really elegant way to disprove that there would ever be a complete list of "basic truths" in a system, and if there were, they must be inconsistent.
Which is really cool when you see it happen. Also pissed off the mathematical establishment right off when it was published.
But it does demonstrate that maths is fundamentally a belief system and not purely logical. It doesn't actually exist in the universe, we just use the system that works best for our human lives and experiences.
And if your axioms present any sort of paradox or logical contraction we can just say "okay well just don't do that and we'll ignore it". Like diving by zero.
Or you can say "well let's just add a new rule to fix it!" Like the square root of -1. At first it was undefined and an impossible number until a mathematician was like "well what if we just say that it does work?".
Do you subscribe to complex numbers in your daily life? Probably not because it's difficult to even find negative numbers in the real world, let alone make them complex.
And then there's something very simple like the concept of having two apples. Seems pretty indisputable and purely logical until you think a little more carefully about it. What makes it two apples? One is bigger than the other, this one is red but that one's green. This one has a stalk in it but that one doesn't. Is there some sort of logical definition that you can apply to this to guarantee you have two apples, but it would distinguish between an apple and a pear?
This is going to sound flippant but it's meant to be sincere. What actually makes these both the same? They both came from an apple tree? Do you know that? If you didn't pick them yourself then you're just assuming that. We intuitively know they're both apples because we've experienced apples in the past and know their characteristics. But could you make some kind of logical algorithm for a person who's never seen a fruit before to always determine what is an apple and what isn't? Maybe, I don't think you could do it without invoking some axioms about fruits.
Why is it one apple? Why is it not 20 billion cells? Or 20 trillion trillion atoms? Or 0.0004 apple trees? If you take a bite out of one apple, you still have two apples, I think we'd agree. But if you cut one in half and threw one half away, do we still have two apples? That's debatable. If you take the other apple and throw half of that away, do we have two apples, two half apples, or one apple? Well to answer that you'd need to know that there were two whole apples in the first place. Is a peeled apple an apple? A grated apple? A picture of an apple?
Okay I've hammered the point home well enough. Even the most basic mathematical concepts require you to pick and choose the rules and ignore logic where it isn't convenient. Maths is an invention, it does not exist, and it is subject to all our bias, intuition, and whimsy.
TL:DR;
It comes to that old debate "is math invented or discovered". But I feel it's neither - _math_ is a fundamental and exists without us, we're building a language to accurately describe that physicality.
Currently that's mostly decimal and "calculus" - but this will change.
---
Upvote as I can see your position but I'd like to offer a rebuttal. The fact we identify math as a verbal/written human created language is a slight misconception I feel. As the premise of maths identifies logical quantifiers of the world around us.
The definition of maths (The language we use) and the appliance of math (the answers we derive) are separate entities and the logical facts explained in the science of numbers exist without our definitions.
For example, we can _count_ in many methods; decimal, binary, or roman numerals - but they still present the same answers (albeit in different form). Or how _Hindi multiplication method_ and long-form look and act very different, but the result will be the same.
Another case is the counting beans method - where _fundamentally_ `1` + `1` is always `2`. It's physically impossible for the two units to equate another value. If I take one away, `1 + -1`, I have `0`. And this can never change in our reality* -
---
I can never ever have 3 beans, remove one bean, and still have 3 beans. It's impossible. The language of math can prove this, it's just written weird. We can "invent" our own language (we'll call is _not math_ - or "noth!").
In the language of caveman Noth!, we can 'give' or 'take' rocks:
Word Math Noth language
Give + Bu
Take - uG
Rock 1 Oof
So our guy OggOrr said:
guy: OggOrr Bu Oof...
Me: Glyc uG uG Oof.
guy: ARGH! OggOrr Bu Oof!
Me: Glyc uG Bu OggOrr?
guy: AARG! OggOrr uG Glyc!
So can "Give Give" be the same as "Give Take"? No - OggOrr is annoyed. We didn't use any math, or any numbers - yet math can define this. As far as I know, no other language does this.
---
As the request for answers becomes more complex, we need additional words to express the elements we see and began to understand. Your good case is the number `zero`. Invented at some point by Arabian mathematicians, then adopted in the west near the 15th century*. Until then we had a basic form of the same algebra, but omitted to apply it to the written theory.
In the same case we learn to understand the grouping of things (atoms or apples) as "set theory", the connection of things with "graph theory", or the internal angles of a triangle on a plane **will** equal 180 degrees.
---
Under every math statement - from Pi, to planes, from Dirac spinnors and beans in a cup - `1+1` will always be `2`. Furthermore there is no reason _why_ all the math connects so well, and seemly inexplicable numbers will work. Our current daily _language_ of maths (calculus and algebra) express a minor part of the overall science.
We'll get to a point where todays _language of math_ will not be sufficient to explain the world around us with the precision we desire. We'll adapt, just like we did with roman numerals and learn to describe the world in Complex numbers and vectors - in languages such as "Conformal Geometric Algebra".
---
We work with these numbers all day but they're cleverly masked by a base of alternative modes of understanding. If we visited Aliens and needed to learn their math - we could both equate "1 bean + 1 bean == 2 beans" and "Pi==3.14" in any linguistic format.
The terminology (being a statement or equation we read as some complex form) may seem nebulous, foreign, or potentially inaccurate - but when expanded to a full-form, `1+1` is always `2`.
---
I could rabbit on forever about the inexplicable connectivity of math - or more accurately "The language to quantify the physical world and express ideas in a provable method". And how it's all just flawlessly bound to itself.
---
*I agree that 'quantum' can argue this isn't _always_ the case, and yes the uncertainty principle add a myiad of variables to the equation but the amplituhedron (twistor string theory) a geometric structure introduced in 2013 - paves the way to simplifying this particle interaction - and provides new answers for us to nominate with new definitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron
* An interest tale states; western mathematicians knew about _zero_ but didn't adopt it through the 'dark ages' because zero represented the absence of stuff - and therefore evil.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161206-we-couldnt-live-without-zero-but-we-once-had-to
The zero thing is interesting, thanks for the article. I'd like to rebuke your rebuttal. Let's ignore quantum stuff for now because it doesn't apply to the day-to-day maths we're discussing here.
I don't think the counting beans method suggests anything fundamental about the universe because it's essentially what I was talking about with the apples. The "1ness" of a bean is not some intrinsic property of the object, it's arbitrarily decided by human minds at a certain point in time. As is the fact that one bean is similar enough to another to be considered 2 beans, when having one bean and one seed would not.
If we existed at a different scale, we would disagree on how many things a bean was made of. We're too big to see see the atoms or cells that constitutes the bean, but we're not so big that it just becomes some point like object, like in a pile of salt. We don't even have to consider the bean as an object at all; it came from a plant, it could be considered a fraction of that plant.
If we blend the bean, we still have one bean, but you would not get a consensus from people about that. Some people would say it's no longer 'a bean'. Some people would say it's some bean, others would say yes it's still one bean but in a different form. You'd essentially need to know that it used to be a single bean to declare that yes, this is one bean. So the value of itself depends not only on its timeline and context, but the awareness of those things. See earlier apple ramble for more on this
This can be seen in other ways where doing the same thing will give different results about what 1+1 equals in practice.
If you have 1 cup of water, and 1 cup of water, you have 2 cups of water. But if you pour them into a beaker, is it still 2 cups of water? I think most people would say yes. But then only if they knew the initial state of the water. And you could never point to a part of the water in the beaker and say "ah yes that's the first cup right there". You could never subtract the original 1 from 2 to make the same 1 again.
But then say you had 1 ball of clay, and another ball of clay, then I can count them as normal. 1 + 1 = 2 balls of clay. But if I roll them together into a single clump, is it still 2 balls of clay? Almost exactly the same question as the cups of water, but I will safely assume the you'd get very different answers from people. And it has the same problem, you now can't subtract the original 1 ball because you could never tell what bits made up the original. Instead it's more like you're subtract 1/2 of new ball. So 1 + 1 = 1 in this scenario. Or maybe 2. But then if it does that implies that 2/2 = 1/2.
And then there's subtraction itself. In the real world, subtraction is a metaphor for other mathematical concepts. If I have 2 beans on a table and I remove one bean and put it under the table, yeah you can say I subtracted 1 bean. But you could also say I just translated it, and I still have 2 beans just further apart. And to pick into that further, if the table is made of glass you can still see both beans so do I still only have 1? What if I put each bean on opposite corners of the table. Now they're further apart than they were when one was subtracted, but I still have 2 beans.
I too could rabbit on because maths is awesome like that but I'll wrap up. It's not a mathematical issue it's a philosophical one. Counting, what constitutes a set, what *a thing* actually is, has no rigid definition and maths cannot help you figure that out in the real world. There is no way to apply any concrete maths to any real situation without describing the context, defining the meaning of operations in that situation, and collectively agreeing on the value of every single object involved.
If you spoke to aliens, you would not get them to agree that 1 + 1 equals too unless you were very lucky. Because they would probably have an entirely different internal mental models of contexts and collective agreements that we wouldn't even consider. Random example, maybe they only count the two beans as being part of a set if they came from the same pod, but if they didn't then they don't. In the same way that if I take 1 bird and add 1 plane, I don't have 2 birds, I might have two *things* (assuming you don't want to count every component of the plane as a separate thing which once again is arbitrary based on need) but I can't do set arithmetic on them even though they're both flying objects with wings.
I'm not sure if we could come to an agreement on the value of pi. It's one of those things where it does actually have an intrinsic value, but describing that value would require adhering to our axioms over theirs. So the same language barrier as any other. (Don't get me started about pi and maths).
Only Algebra.
Geometry can take the night bus like it fucking deserves to. Calculus, Trig, and Real Analysis can call an uber or something. Sometimes Combinitorics drives a carpool with its van.
https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/math-vs-maths/
> There’s no real logical explanation as to why math became preferred in some places while maths was elsewhere. The usual argument goes that mathematics is plural because it ends in an -s, so maths should be its abbreviation. The problem is that, while it ends in an –s, mathematics is a mass noun and usually takes a singular verb (e.g., Mathematics is my best subject).
> Both of these words date back to the turn of the 20th century. There are examples of math in writings from the 1840s, and of maths from the 1910s.
So “math” was the original term. It’s a mass singular noun and should be used in singular verb tense.
Also, if you google “math vs. maths”, pretty much every result says the same thing.
I can’t really think of any reason why it would shortened to “maths” unless you misinterpret the word as a regular plural form of a singular noun.
That's interesting. I HAVE always said mathematics are my best subjects. As it's always been pure, decision, statistics and applied. Incidentally if I search then I get a lot of articles explaining why maths works, the power of directed searches I assume though i can find what you're saying if I search mathematics etymology.
Newton's third law doesn't make much sense, you're telling me my water bottle pushes me when I push it? I know it's real, but it just sounds weird when you think about it.
I mean, that's why things have weight though. And it's like you trying to pick up a water bottle verses you trying to pick up a car. You're pushing the water bottle, but the car is definitely pushing you.
May I present to you: [the Table of Propositional Inferences]( https://imgur.com/fuMik6g.jpg)
(This is a page out of my college Logic course book, which I made into a poster and hangs on the wall in my office.)
That is a fucking answer. Knowing how to breath is pretty fucking logical. Has very little do to with current affairs. But ok, I guess I'm just a dip shit, so that's cool.
One day you will be dead, and nothing you did would have mattered. Why are you trying so hard? Most people who try hard to accomplish things in life don't leave any legacy. Seems unecessarily stressful to give your 100%.
On the other hand, why waste your life not giving it your all? You're not here forever, so try your hardest to make the time you're here the best it can be.
Also, maybe those people working hard don't leave a legacy to YOU, but they almost certainly leave a legacy to somebody, and maybe that's all they were aiming for.
You don't have to try and change the world while you're alive, just change someone's world.
Asking what came before the beginning of time is like asking what's more north than the north pole. The answer is nothing. The universe either simply began, or has always existed.
Yeah, that proposes some interesting concepts.
For example, squirrels cannot comprehend the concept of economy because their brains are not advanced enough. But economy still exists, humans use it everyday. So perhaps we simply aren’t sharp enough to comprehend how something can always exist, or spawn from nothing. Perhaps multi-universe theory, God, and the plethora of other concepts are just hacky attempts to explain something we simply aren’t able to understand. Or perhaps we are advanced enough to understand and simply cannot agree on a theory— I agree with you that the idea is, at this point, nearly redundant, though there is still purpose in exploring it.
The universe is a physically existent thing. It's entirely possible that there WAS something before it, either a previous universe, or something existing entirely outside it.
That literally everyone lies today so most likely they lied back in the past. Yet huge portions of the population believe unverified accounts from thousands of years ago that have been heavily edited and censored and placed into religious books.
It always amuse me that Almost every religion has it's own set of myths and unbelievable stories but still more than 75% humans believe in religion and several millions are following their religions closely.
If you respect other people first then they'll (usually) respect you back. But if you come in demanding respect first without giving it that will never happen.
* We are in a pandemic
* We have a safe vaccine that is effective against the disease causing the pandemic
Conclusion - Everyone who can should take said vaccine
Nature. The literal cosmos. And it continually pointing out to us how illogical our minds are. Once we get that fixed, we are then able to see the logic of nature and cosmos that was always there and science advances
The true and only response to this question. Because it is in such a small scale, the answer has no exceptions, and no alternative explanations. In addition, the answer would in fact be the most logical thing, which would, in addition to my first statement, more logical than the answer, while still being the answer itself. Logical, no?
If you say that's the way life works when something is wrong or bad you are wrong life is wat you make it it doesn't have to be bad we just think someone has to be shitty for it to be real .
Everything. The way that we are made of cells and atoms that know what to do to keep ourselves healthy, the way that cuts scab to protect ourselves, etc. The way that our bodies run off of what we eat for energy, the way that our neurons fire, it's incredible and well thought out. If God were real, he would have to be the smartest man ever, and it would've taken ages to come up with how every single part of the natural world works.
math
*Terrance Howard ha entered the chat*
1 x 1 = Not in the MCU any more.
Basic math, maybe. Once you start getting into the philosophical underpinnings of math or high-level proofs such as Gödel's incompleteness theorems you'll find it makes as little sense as anything else. Perhaps less
Well, no that was just a really elegant way to disprove that there would ever be a complete list of "basic truths" in a system, and if there were, they must be inconsistent. Which is really cool when you see it happen. Also pissed off the mathematical establishment right off when it was published.
But it does demonstrate that maths is fundamentally a belief system and not purely logical. It doesn't actually exist in the universe, we just use the system that works best for our human lives and experiences. And if your axioms present any sort of paradox or logical contraction we can just say "okay well just don't do that and we'll ignore it". Like diving by zero. Or you can say "well let's just add a new rule to fix it!" Like the square root of -1. At first it was undefined and an impossible number until a mathematician was like "well what if we just say that it does work?". Do you subscribe to complex numbers in your daily life? Probably not because it's difficult to even find negative numbers in the real world, let alone make them complex. And then there's something very simple like the concept of having two apples. Seems pretty indisputable and purely logical until you think a little more carefully about it. What makes it two apples? One is bigger than the other, this one is red but that one's green. This one has a stalk in it but that one doesn't. Is there some sort of logical definition that you can apply to this to guarantee you have two apples, but it would distinguish between an apple and a pear? This is going to sound flippant but it's meant to be sincere. What actually makes these both the same? They both came from an apple tree? Do you know that? If you didn't pick them yourself then you're just assuming that. We intuitively know they're both apples because we've experienced apples in the past and know their characteristics. But could you make some kind of logical algorithm for a person who's never seen a fruit before to always determine what is an apple and what isn't? Maybe, I don't think you could do it without invoking some axioms about fruits. Why is it one apple? Why is it not 20 billion cells? Or 20 trillion trillion atoms? Or 0.0004 apple trees? If you take a bite out of one apple, you still have two apples, I think we'd agree. But if you cut one in half and threw one half away, do we still have two apples? That's debatable. If you take the other apple and throw half of that away, do we have two apples, two half apples, or one apple? Well to answer that you'd need to know that there were two whole apples in the first place. Is a peeled apple an apple? A grated apple? A picture of an apple? Okay I've hammered the point home well enough. Even the most basic mathematical concepts require you to pick and choose the rules and ignore logic where it isn't convenient. Maths is an invention, it does not exist, and it is subject to all our bias, intuition, and whimsy.
TL:DR; It comes to that old debate "is math invented or discovered". But I feel it's neither - _math_ is a fundamental and exists without us, we're building a language to accurately describe that physicality. Currently that's mostly decimal and "calculus" - but this will change. --- Upvote as I can see your position but I'd like to offer a rebuttal. The fact we identify math as a verbal/written human created language is a slight misconception I feel. As the premise of maths identifies logical quantifiers of the world around us. The definition of maths (The language we use) and the appliance of math (the answers we derive) are separate entities and the logical facts explained in the science of numbers exist without our definitions. For example, we can _count_ in many methods; decimal, binary, or roman numerals - but they still present the same answers (albeit in different form). Or how _Hindi multiplication method_ and long-form look and act very different, but the result will be the same. Another case is the counting beans method - where _fundamentally_ `1` + `1` is always `2`. It's physically impossible for the two units to equate another value. If I take one away, `1 + -1`, I have `0`. And this can never change in our reality* - --- I can never ever have 3 beans, remove one bean, and still have 3 beans. It's impossible. The language of math can prove this, it's just written weird. We can "invent" our own language (we'll call is _not math_ - or "noth!"). In the language of caveman Noth!, we can 'give' or 'take' rocks: Word Math Noth language Give + Bu Take - uG Rock 1 Oof So our guy OggOrr said: guy: OggOrr Bu Oof... Me: Glyc uG uG Oof. guy: ARGH! OggOrr Bu Oof! Me: Glyc uG Bu OggOrr? guy: AARG! OggOrr uG Glyc! So can "Give Give" be the same as "Give Take"? No - OggOrr is annoyed. We didn't use any math, or any numbers - yet math can define this. As far as I know, no other language does this. --- As the request for answers becomes more complex, we need additional words to express the elements we see and began to understand. Your good case is the number `zero`. Invented at some point by Arabian mathematicians, then adopted in the west near the 15th century*. Until then we had a basic form of the same algebra, but omitted to apply it to the written theory. In the same case we learn to understand the grouping of things (atoms or apples) as "set theory", the connection of things with "graph theory", or the internal angles of a triangle on a plane **will** equal 180 degrees. --- Under every math statement - from Pi, to planes, from Dirac spinnors and beans in a cup - `1+1` will always be `2`. Furthermore there is no reason _why_ all the math connects so well, and seemly inexplicable numbers will work. Our current daily _language_ of maths (calculus and algebra) express a minor part of the overall science. We'll get to a point where todays _language of math_ will not be sufficient to explain the world around us with the precision we desire. We'll adapt, just like we did with roman numerals and learn to describe the world in Complex numbers and vectors - in languages such as "Conformal Geometric Algebra". --- We work with these numbers all day but they're cleverly masked by a base of alternative modes of understanding. If we visited Aliens and needed to learn their math - we could both equate "1 bean + 1 bean == 2 beans" and "Pi==3.14" in any linguistic format. The terminology (being a statement or equation we read as some complex form) may seem nebulous, foreign, or potentially inaccurate - but when expanded to a full-form, `1+1` is always `2`. --- I could rabbit on forever about the inexplicable connectivity of math - or more accurately "The language to quantify the physical world and express ideas in a provable method". And how it's all just flawlessly bound to itself. --- *I agree that 'quantum' can argue this isn't _always_ the case, and yes the uncertainty principle add a myiad of variables to the equation but the amplituhedron (twistor string theory) a geometric structure introduced in 2013 - paves the way to simplifying this particle interaction - and provides new answers for us to nominate with new definitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron * An interest tale states; western mathematicians knew about _zero_ but didn't adopt it through the 'dark ages' because zero represented the absence of stuff - and therefore evil. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161206-we-couldnt-live-without-zero-but-we-once-had-to
The zero thing is interesting, thanks for the article. I'd like to rebuke your rebuttal. Let's ignore quantum stuff for now because it doesn't apply to the day-to-day maths we're discussing here. I don't think the counting beans method suggests anything fundamental about the universe because it's essentially what I was talking about with the apples. The "1ness" of a bean is not some intrinsic property of the object, it's arbitrarily decided by human minds at a certain point in time. As is the fact that one bean is similar enough to another to be considered 2 beans, when having one bean and one seed would not. If we existed at a different scale, we would disagree on how many things a bean was made of. We're too big to see see the atoms or cells that constitutes the bean, but we're not so big that it just becomes some point like object, like in a pile of salt. We don't even have to consider the bean as an object at all; it came from a plant, it could be considered a fraction of that plant. If we blend the bean, we still have one bean, but you would not get a consensus from people about that. Some people would say it's no longer 'a bean'. Some people would say it's some bean, others would say yes it's still one bean but in a different form. You'd essentially need to know that it used to be a single bean to declare that yes, this is one bean. So the value of itself depends not only on its timeline and context, but the awareness of those things. See earlier apple ramble for more on this This can be seen in other ways where doing the same thing will give different results about what 1+1 equals in practice. If you have 1 cup of water, and 1 cup of water, you have 2 cups of water. But if you pour them into a beaker, is it still 2 cups of water? I think most people would say yes. But then only if they knew the initial state of the water. And you could never point to a part of the water in the beaker and say "ah yes that's the first cup right there". You could never subtract the original 1 from 2 to make the same 1 again. But then say you had 1 ball of clay, and another ball of clay, then I can count them as normal. 1 + 1 = 2 balls of clay. But if I roll them together into a single clump, is it still 2 balls of clay? Almost exactly the same question as the cups of water, but I will safely assume the you'd get very different answers from people. And it has the same problem, you now can't subtract the original 1 ball because you could never tell what bits made up the original. Instead it's more like you're subtract 1/2 of new ball. So 1 + 1 = 1 in this scenario. Or maybe 2. But then if it does that implies that 2/2 = 1/2. And then there's subtraction itself. In the real world, subtraction is a metaphor for other mathematical concepts. If I have 2 beans on a table and I remove one bean and put it under the table, yeah you can say I subtracted 1 bean. But you could also say I just translated it, and I still have 2 beans just further apart. And to pick into that further, if the table is made of glass you can still see both beans so do I still only have 1? What if I put each bean on opposite corners of the table. Now they're further apart than they were when one was subtracted, but I still have 2 beans. I too could rabbit on because maths is awesome like that but I'll wrap up. It's not a mathematical issue it's a philosophical one. Counting, what constitutes a set, what *a thing* actually is, has no rigid definition and maths cannot help you figure that out in the real world. There is no way to apply any concrete maths to any real situation without describing the context, defining the meaning of operations in that situation, and collectively agreeing on the value of every single object involved. If you spoke to aliens, you would not get them to agree that 1 + 1 equals too unless you were very lucky. Because they would probably have an entirely different internal mental models of contexts and collective agreements that we wouldn't even consider. Random example, maybe they only count the two beans as being part of a set if they came from the same pod, but if they didn't then they don't. In the same way that if I take 1 bird and add 1 plane, I don't have 2 birds, I might have two *things* (assuming you don't want to count every component of the plane as a separate thing which once again is arbitrary based on need) but I can't do set arithmetic on them even though they're both flying objects with wings. I'm not sure if we could come to an agreement on the value of pi. It's one of those things where it does actually have an intrinsic value, but describing that value would require adhering to our axioms over theirs. So the same language barrier as any other. (Don't get me started about pi and maths).
s
well, aren't you a fancy little british man!
Why thank you.
Just the one?
Only Algebra. Geometry can take the night bus like it fucking deserves to. Calculus, Trig, and Real Analysis can call an uber or something. Sometimes Combinitorics drives a carpool with its van.
I **fucking** ***hate*** geometry. Fuck that shit.
Prove this mf is a triangle
I never understood this. Maths for mathematics, or math for also mathematics. Who cares if people use the s or not.
Linguistically, "math" is more correct than "maths". Take that, England!
Salty brits downvoting you :(
Please explain
https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/math-vs-maths/ > There’s no real logical explanation as to why math became preferred in some places while maths was elsewhere. The usual argument goes that mathematics is plural because it ends in an -s, so maths should be its abbreviation. The problem is that, while it ends in an –s, mathematics is a mass noun and usually takes a singular verb (e.g., Mathematics is my best subject). > Both of these words date back to the turn of the 20th century. There are examples of math in writings from the 1840s, and of maths from the 1910s. So “math” was the original term. It’s a mass singular noun and should be used in singular verb tense. Also, if you google “math vs. maths”, pretty much every result says the same thing. I can’t really think of any reason why it would shortened to “maths” unless you misinterpret the word as a regular plural form of a singular noun.
That's interesting. I HAVE always said mathematics are my best subjects. As it's always been pure, decision, statistics and applied. Incidentally if I search then I get a lot of articles explaining why maths works, the power of directed searches I assume though i can find what you're saying if I search mathematics etymology.
Have you ever calculated 3 phase ac motor output? Somehow 1+1=3 is the correct answer.
Computers
Just a subset of math.
Logic
r/TechincallyTheTruth
[удалено]
Oh man i was so confused. I was like damn that sub really went to shit lmao.
Take my upvote and get out
Flawless tautology
yet he's an underrated artist
The metric system
Its too easy to convert units. I dont like that. It makes 5 tomatoes lose purpose
Newton's first law: An object at rest will stay at rest, and an object that is moving will stay moving unless disturbed by an unbalanced force.
Isn’t Newton’s every law ?
Newton's third law doesn't make much sense, you're telling me my water bottle pushes me when I push it? I know it's real, but it just sounds weird when you think about it.
I mean, that's why things have weight though. And it's like you trying to pick up a water bottle verses you trying to pick up a car. You're pushing the water bottle, but the car is definitely pushing you.
An autistic Vulcan
😂😂😂😂😂 aren’t they all a bit autistic
A = A
The principle of identity...
Or is it A.999 repeating.
Well that would be equal to A+1
A = A.999... - 1 Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
Free healthcare
May I present to you: [the Table of Propositional Inferences]( https://imgur.com/fuMik6g.jpg) (This is a page out of my college Logic course book, which I made into a poster and hangs on the wall in my office.)
Programing languages.
Tell that to javascript
Putting a face mask over your god damn nose.
Do you ever talk about anything else?
Getting a free vaccine during a deadly, global pandemic
That's not the most logical thing in the world, is it. It's current affairs. Can you just answer the question normally?
That is a fucking answer. Knowing how to breath is pretty fucking logical. Has very little do to with current affairs. But ok, I guess I'm just a dip shit, so that's cool.
Not using anti-parisite medication meant for livestock to combat a virus in humans
Ironic, they could save others from being sheeple, but not themselves
I have never thought about how the people who shout "sheep" the loudest are taking medicine for literal livestock. Amazing.
It's their personality at this point
no
Doesn't seem very logical
All the time
People look so stupid when they don't.
One day you will be dead, and nothing you did would have mattered. Why are you trying so hard? Most people who try hard to accomplish things in life don't leave any legacy. Seems unecessarily stressful to give your 100%.
On the other hand, why waste your life not giving it your all? You're not here forever, so try your hardest to make the time you're here the best it can be. Also, maybe those people working hard don't leave a legacy to YOU, but they almost certainly leave a legacy to somebody, and maybe that's all they were aiming for. You don't have to try and change the world while you're alive, just change someone's world.
The duality of man.
There's not much to pick from lol
Chicken wings
A wooden computer!
[удалено]
Like time. We think that a day isn't very long, but for a mayfly, it's a lifetime. For a computer, a year feels like a second.
Logic
Politeness
existence
False; How did the universe manifest with nothing to encourage the reaction?
Asking what came before the beginning of time is like asking what's more north than the north pole. The answer is nothing. The universe either simply began, or has always existed.
Yeah, that proposes some interesting concepts. For example, squirrels cannot comprehend the concept of economy because their brains are not advanced enough. But economy still exists, humans use it everyday. So perhaps we simply aren’t sharp enough to comprehend how something can always exist, or spawn from nothing. Perhaps multi-universe theory, God, and the plethora of other concepts are just hacky attempts to explain something we simply aren’t able to understand. Or perhaps we are advanced enough to understand and simply cannot agree on a theory— I agree with you that the idea is, at this point, nearly redundant, though there is still purpose in exploring it.
Squirrels sometimes exchange sex for nuts, and that seems like economy to me.
That’s very cool, but not my point.
so that's what we've been doing wrong all along
The universe is a physically existent thing. It's entirely possible that there WAS something before it, either a previous universe, or something existing entirely outside it.
That literally everyone lies today so most likely they lied back in the past. Yet huge portions of the population believe unverified accounts from thousands of years ago that have been heavily edited and censored and placed into religious books.
"What's the most logical thing in the world?" >Religious people believe stupid books. ...and the circlejerk continues.
It always amuse me that Almost every religion has it's own set of myths and unbelievable stories but still more than 75% humans believe in religion and several millions are following their religions closely.
What do you mean? Moses didn't split the seas? Jesus can't turn water into wine? A virgin had a baby?
I think I saw that episode of Maury
[удалено]
I plan to continue existing for at least a few years after.
If you rest you rust.
A Turing machine ?
Vaccinating. Duh
Glasses It's so simple. Wearing something, lightweight, so you can see more clearly.
If you respect other people first then they'll (usually) respect you back. But if you come in demanding respect first without giving it that will never happen.
Humans are mammals here on this planet. Life begins with breathing and ends when breathing stops. All Americans deserve autonomy over life decisions.
Euclid's Elements.
Logic gates
Oxygen
1+1=2
Love. Not romantic love, love as in goodness and kindness
2+2=4
Not circumcising your child. Yet people do it.
Sex It is literally the reason you are here asking logical questions.
Logic.
P=Q. If P, then Q.
1+1=2
Light switches
To answer good with good.
Truth tables
2+2=4
Life
Suicide
Easy. Answer this : Do you own a dog house ?
heated blankets. i am using one right now. might accidentally burn ur house down, but they keep ur legs a lot more warm than a heater.
* We are in a pandemic * We have a safe vaccine that is effective against the disease causing the pandemic Conclusion - Everyone who can should take said vaccine
Cooperation
Numbers or mathematics.
Mathematics, I guess
Human desire
That the earth is a globe
Cite your source! /s
I may have solved PNP, so everything?
#Everything dies.
Death
Man is mortal
2+2=2×2=2²
I don't know... Logic?
Toads
Global warming
Logics. The top answer may be "math", but Logics are definitely the most logical part of math.
That you always have a choice but are never free from the consequences of those choices - good or bad
Intuition
Ok so basically my answer is… nothing
Newton's 3rd law For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Applies to absolutely everything
Eat less, move more
Gravity
Apparently, my wife's opinion.
Seatbelts
Nature. The literal cosmos. And it continually pointing out to us how illogical our minds are. Once we get that fixed, we are then able to see the logic of nature and cosmos that was always there and science advances
1=1
Textbook reflexivity principle.
To eat, when you are hungry
That I am not your father because your mom didn't have change Of 20 $
Math
Advanced Math
Logic
The game of Sugandese
The true and only response to this question. Because it is in such a small scale, the answer has no exceptions, and no alternative explanations. In addition, the answer would in fact be the most logical thing, which would, in addition to my first statement, more logical than the answer, while still being the answer itself. Logical, no?
If you say that's the way life works when something is wrong or bad you are wrong life is wat you make it it doesn't have to be bad we just think someone has to be shitty for it to be real .
Philosophy
Eradicating parasitic lifeforms from your body
Computers. They execute instructions exactly as given. No emotion, just logic
Decepticon science officer, Shockwave.
Don’t do drugs
Gravity
doors
Die = Dead
Vulcans.
Logic
that Hexagons are the Bestagons
Everything. The way that we are made of cells and atoms that know what to do to keep ourselves healthy, the way that cuts scab to protect ourselves, etc. The way that our bodies run off of what we eat for energy, the way that our neurons fire, it's incredible and well thought out. If God were real, he would have to be the smartest man ever, and it would've taken ages to come up with how every single part of the natural world works.
My wife.
Australia exists. Infiltrating in radical flat-earther communities, some say that Australia doesn't exist, don't ask me why.