A new mathematical symbol

[two sheds]

How else was maths originally developed?

 

[Mumbles274]

The whole thread. The attempt to create maths without actually knowing any maths.

I know enough to know I don't know. And surely that is the start of any maths. It will be maths that solves the problem of dark energy/matter/gravity. So where do solutions lay except in new maths. Dark maths!?

 

[two sheds]

I don't think that's physics public group | Facebook

Would be interesting but I'm not on Facebook

 

[kabbes]

How else was maths originally developed?

By people who already knew the state of the art in the subject fundamentals they were then building on further. It wasn’t developed by stoners trying each time to start from scratch.

 

[two sheds]

Questioning, it was developed by questioning

 

[kabbes]

Yes, intelligent questioning by people who already knew lots of answers.

This thread is an abortion right from post 1. It raises questions that were dealt with 200 years ago. If anybody wants to know about algebraic functions, for example, the first step is to learn about Group theory - Wikipedia

 

[Supine]

We don't need experts anymore kabbes

 

[two sheds]

Yes, intelligent questioning by people who already knew lots of answers.

This thread is an abortion right from post 1. It raises questions that were dealt with 200 years ago. If anybody wants to know about algebraic functions, for example, the first step is to learn about Group theory - Wikipedia

hehe not what I'd call a 'first step'. For example I thought 'linear algebraic groups' might be a good starting out point from the first paragraph of that link. We get:

In mathematics, a linear algebraic group is a subgroup of the group of invertible n×n matrices (under matrix multiplication) that is defined by polynomial equations. An example is the orthogonal group, defined by the relation MTM = 1 where MT is the transpose of M.

 

[kabbes]

You need to start earlier, in the ”Groups with Additional structure”:

An important elaboration of the concept of a group occurs if G is endowed with additional structure, notably, of a topological space, differentiable manifold, or algebraic variety. If the group operations m (multiplication) and i (inversion),



are compatible with this structure, that is, they are continuous, smooth or regular (in the sense of algebraic geometry) maps, then G is a topological group, a Lie group, or an algebraic group.[2]

And no, it’s not easy. I didn’t lock myself in a room for years to study this bollocks in a degree so that any old eejit could come along later and just get it after a quick scan of a webpage!

 

[two sheds]

Nope I think you have to go back much further than that, for example:

The Four Basic Mathematical Operations

and work your way up from there. (Well not 'you' obviously ).

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I have one rock. I get another rock. I now have two rocks.

I guess the rest flowed from there.

 

[two sheds]

Kabbes knows the maths, “the rest of you... keep banging the rocks together”

 

[friedaweed]

Maybe kabbes can sort out VAR then

 

[kabbes]

I learnt enough of it to know I was never going to be really great at it! I’m not really one for thinking in n-dimensional topographical spaces.

 

[two sheds]

I learnt enough of it to know I was never going to be really great at it!

That means I know as much as you do

 

[Mumbles274]

By people who already knew the state of the art in the subject fundamentals they were then building on further. It wasn’t developed by stoners trying each time to start from scratch.

Who said anyone was starting from scratch? We have issues in science and maths that cant be explained totally by current understanding of both. That is called 'Dark'.. As in unknown. Why would you discount the idea that the science and maths is also unknown as per our current understanding?

 

[two sheds]

I don't think he is discounting it, his point is that you have to understand current theory before you can know what questions to ask. And he has a point there.

 

[Mumbles274]

I don't think he is discounting it, his point is that you have to understand current theory before you can know what questions to ask. And he has a point there.

Of course. And I'm pretty sure of what that limit between the issues involved is. So how, based on the current model of observable universe do you begin to account for the stuff we can kinda observe also has to be there. What if maths needs another dimension? Quantum physics has the uncertainty principle. The more you try to know where something is the less certain you will be. All maths is is trying to explain a problem.. And there is a gap in our problems so far

 

[two sheds]

Maths does have another dimension - it's got bloody hundreds unfortunately but i or j gives an 'imaginary' dimension: one at right angles to the four of space and time.

Uncertainty principle has a precise meaning though, it's not just that we're not sure what's going on (although we are ).

I think.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

All maths is is trying to explain a problem

This isn’t true. Some people use maths to solve problems.

 

[Mumbles274]

This isn’t true. Some people use maths to solve problems.

Sorry. This was a maths thread, isn't that just semantics?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Sorry. This was a maths thread, isn't that just semantics?

No. The idea that maths is “solving problems” is a misunderstanding of what pure maths is.

 

[two sheds]

This isn’t true. Some people use maths to solve problems.

No. The idea that maths is “solving problems” is a misunderstanding of what pure maths is.

errrrm

 

[Mumbles274]

What's the difference between "explain" and "solve"?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

errrrm

What?

 

[two sheds]

What?

You were correcting mumbles' statement:

All maths is is trying to explain a problem..

You meant 'the idea that "explaining problems" is a misunderstanding ...' otherwise you're correcting yourself.

change it quick, nobody will notice

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

You were correcting mumbles' statement:

You meant 'the idea that "explaining problems" is a misunderstanding ...' otherwise you're correcting yourself.

change it quick, nobody will notice

Oh, yeah.

Whatever. Pure maths isn’t anything to do with “problems”, in the way most people view the term anyway.

 

[bluescreen]

"We've had enough of experts!"
It's not maths any more, though, is it, when it comes to quantum. Not maths as we know it. It's all undefined qubits and my head asplodes.

 

[bimble]

This thread is terrible & also makes me feel nostalgic for the earliest days of my career as a massive stoner.

 

[two sheds]

This thread is terrible & also makes me feel nostalgic for the earliest days of my career as a massive stoner.

You made a career out of it? Impressive.