Re:Foundational Anxieties, Modern Mathematics, and the Polit...
by DiscourseFan on Friday June 16, 2023 @11:12PM
(#36366897)
I'm very shocked your post hasn't been reported, you've directly gone against several of the guidelines listed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I really don't think that the kind of language your using is acceptable on HN and I'd prefer if you were trying to engage or teach me something instead of ridiculing me, as you said.
Re:Foundational Anxieties, Modern Mathematics, and the Polit...
by constantcrying on Saturday June 17, 2023 @04:35AM
(#36368402)
You are a pseudointellectual.
> I'd prefer if you were trying to engage or teach me something instead of ridiculing me, as you said.
You haven't shown the tiniest bit of humility in regards to mathematics. And I see absolutely zero reason to try to teach someone without a shred of humility.
The true danger of postmodernism is people like you. You believe because the "grand narratives" have broken down you can go arround and confidently talk about any topic you want, but you don't even know what the words mean.
I am ridicoluing you. Everything you said was nonsensical or an inversion of the truth. No second year your would write blatant nonsense like that. Your post is again full of confidently asserted statements that are pure nonsense.
>with the idea that CFG is something that relies on axioms which create rigid structures of logic that are unable to be questioned as they make it difficult to explore areas of math that do not conform to them.
Idiotic thing to write. Who cares about CFG? It is a part of language theory. Its not even first order logic. The rest of the statement is just bizarre.
>You say that ZF-C is trivial
You are halucinating. I said every proof in ZF-C is a proof in ZFC. But since you know nothing about mathematics you do not know what that means.
>but there are significant portions of mathematics research dedicated to finding proofs without the AC and seeing if the AC is even necessary in constructing any axiomatic system
LOL, the question has always been answered. All countable mathematics is fine without AC. You don't even know what AC is about. AC is not neccesarry since ALL finite mathematics do not need it.
> I am not confident that the CFG is something that can exist without the AC (but I cannot here prove it),
Because you are an idiot. AC is only relevant in uncountable math, it never applies to CFG. Finite AC is like saying "the sky is blue".
> I don't think the fact that someone built a computer which follows very specific rules of interpretation can interpret context-free grammar proves much of anything besides that someone in a certain social context constructed something that relies on that social context.
You think that because you know very little about mathematics. And because you have no idea what AC or a CFG even is. To everyone with a basic math education this claim is obvious though.
> I was using group theory and not set-theory
In ZFC the only mathematical object is a set + a few primitives. All statements in group theory are set theoretical statements. 2 is a set + is a set. You don't know this because you are uneducated about mathematics, but every first semester learns this.
I could go on further. My critique of you is: You know nothing about the subject, yet you are talking extremely confidently. I really do not care what you have to say, as everything you just said shows a profound lack of knowledge and humility in regards to mathematics.
I was very surprised you didn't bring up Gödel, he is the usual goto for pseudointellectuals like you. Please stop talking about mathematics.