Reply to: Religious nut kills himself in Norte Dame Cathedral as protest to gay marriage

[NotAllThere]

Voodoo? Does that mean he's a talking black cock?

[Old Greg]

No I am not. The problem is that I read more carefully than you write. In the context of mathematical logic "valid" means something, so when you also say that it is all but impossible to interpret your original statement as meaning anything other than "scientific experiments can prove mathematical theorems".

Therefore, you are talking cock.

QED

Well. I am a simple ancient language graduate, but he may not understand that reason is an alternative to voodoo.

[NotAllThere]

My statement was
"Yes because scientific rational experiments can confirm Mathematical concepts/identities are valid."
...

Which is wrong in all important respects. Scientific rational experiments fundamentally cannot confirm mathematical concepts. Not in the slightest, under any circumstances. To say that they do simply shows, once more, how deeply ignorant you are.

Listen, and understand. That Proggy is out there. It can't be argued with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel remorse, or fear or stupidity. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you have given up and gone to bed.

Or banned for stupidity beyond bounds. Einstein said "There are two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not certain about the first one". He'd have felt that Proggy was all by himself proof of the second.

[doodab]

Listen, and understand. That Proggy is out there. It can't be argued with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel remorse, or fear or stupidity. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you have given up and gone to the pub.

Much better idea.

[doodab]

My statement was
"Yes because scientific rational experiments can confirm Mathematical concepts/identities are valid."

So you are saying basically what I said.

No I am not. The problem is that I read more carefully than you write. In the context of mathematical logic "valid" means something, so when you also say that

And math proofs aren't scientific? What are they then? Voodoo?

it is all but impossible to interpret your original statement as meaning anything other than "scientific experiments can prove mathematical theorems".

Therefore, you are talking cock.

QED

[Spacecadet]

Quite. You sound like an GCSE media studies student to be honest.

Listen, and understand. That Proggy is out there. It can't be argued with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel remorse, or fear or stupidity. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you have given up and gone to bed.

[proggy]

Experiments may be useful to help convince that some mathematical statement is likely to be true, or to provide clues on how to find a proof, but they do not constitute a proof in the mathematical sense.

My statement was
"Yes because scientific rational experiments can confirm Mathematical concepts/identities are valid."

So you are saying basically what I said.

Next time read more carefully, before wading in, that goes for the other "Mathematicians" here.

[doodab]

You sound like a first year Mathematics student, you have done a few proofs and think your a Mathematician, when in fact you are a clueless idoit.
HTH

Quite. You sound like an GCSE media studies student to be honest.

[doodab]

This formula was discovered not by formal reasoning, but instead by numerical searches on a computer; only afterwards was a rigorous proof found[/COLOR]

Erm, yes. You did notice it says that the numerical searches and other experiments didn't result in a proof, and that it was proven later, didn't you?

Experiments may be useful to help convince that some mathematical statement is likely to be true, or to provide clues on how to find a proof, but they do not constitute a proof in the mathematical sense.

Maths and science have different concepts of truth. Both a scientific theory and a mathematical conjecture can potentially be proven false, but once a proof of a theorem exists it rules out the possibility of subsequent falsification. It is true in a way that only something that exists purely in the world of ideas can be. There is no equivalent to this for scientific theories, in that respect they are merely conjectures, however well supported by experimental evidence they happen to be.

[Old Greg]

Experimental mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A significant milestone and achievement of experimental mathematics was the discovery in 1995 of the Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula for the binary digits of π. This formula was discovered not by formal reasoning, but instead by numerical searches on a computer; only afterwards was a rigorous proof found

You sound like a first year Mathematics student, you have done a few proofs and think your a Mathematician, when in fact you are a clueless idoit.
HTH

Sounds like you've met your match.

[proggy]

Maths is a tool used by science, but it is not science, and proofs are not scientific. You are conflating mathematical reasoning with the scientific method and they are not the same thing at all.

Maths uses logical reasoning to prove beyond any doubt that a particular statement is true given the truth of some other statements.

Science uses experiments to obtain evidence to support or disprove theories.

A scientific theory can potentially be disproved, a mathematical theorem cannot. Although scientific theories are often expressed in a mathematical form you cannot "prove" a scientific theory using logical reasoning alone, and a mathematical theorem cannot be proved by experiment, which is what you asserted.



They certainly have some common roots, unfortunately the way you are expressing yourself bears few of the hallmarks of rational thinking.

Modern maths relies on logical deduction from axioms, these are statements that are accepted as true without proof. In that respect it's remarkably similar to religion, and in fact you get quasi-religious arguments over things such as the axiom of choice, which it turns out is unprovable. You either accept it exists or you don't.

Have you ever read a mathematical proof? A proper one?

Experimental mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A significant milestone and achievement of experimental mathematics was the discovery in 1995 of the Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula for the binary digits of π. This formula was discovered not by formal reasoning, but instead by numerical searches on a computer; only afterwards was a rigorous proof found

You sound like a first year Mathematics student, you have done a few proofs and think your a Mathematician, when in fact you are a clueless idoit.
HTH

[doodab]

And math proofs aren't scientific? What are they then? Voodoo?

Maths is a tool used by science, but it is not science, and proofs are not scientific. You are conflating mathematical reasoning with the scientific method and they are not the same thing at all.

Maths uses logical reasoning to prove beyond any doubt that a particular statement is true given the truth of some other statements.

Science uses experiments to obtain evidence to support or disprove theories.

A scientific theory can potentially be disproved, a mathematical theorem cannot. Although scientific theories are often expressed in a mathematical form you cannot "prove" a scientific theory using logical reasoning alone, and a mathematical theorem cannot be proved by experiment, which is what you asserted.

My point is Math is grounded in rational thinking as is science. Religion is not!

They certainly have some common roots, unfortunately the way you are expressing yourself bears few of the hallmarks of rational thinking.

Modern maths relies on logical deduction from axioms, these are statements that are accepted as true without proof. In that respect it's remarkably similar to religion, and in fact you get quasi-religious arguments over things such as the axiom of choice, which it turns out is unprovable. You either accept it exists or you don't.

Have you ever read a mathematical proof? A proper one?

[NotAllThere]

"It was a joke". Yes, of course you were. You're only pretending to be a blithering idiot. But you are right on one thing; you should start with an understanding of what mathematics is, as you clearly haven't a clue.

btw - Euler was a deist. He believed in a supreme supernatural being (god) and the immortality of the soul.

[proggy]

Let me explain why your two comments here indicate the depth of your ignorance.

1. Science does not "confirm mathematical concepts". Maths confirms mathematical concepts. Some mathematical concepts are used in science; many have no scientific application whatsoever; nonetheless they remain mathematics.

2. "Jesus wept" is a common expletive used to indicate incredulity, specifically at stupidity. Sasguru's use in this case is to show that he thinks you're an imbecile (because of your first comment). It in no way indicates that he is religious - any more than Einstein's "God does not play dice", or "God created the integers, all else is of man".

Ironically, your response to his response to your first comment only increases the evidence that you really are incredibly thick, and probably shouldn't be allowed out to play by your mummy.

1) "Mathematics is the queen of the sciences." Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss
2) I know it was a joke.

I'll take my chances ans side with Gauss

Looks like you have learning to do, I would start with understanding what Mathematics is.

[NotAllThere]

Yes because scientific rational experiments can confirm Mathematical concepts/identities are valid.

Jesus wept.

Not another religious nut! I thought you were a bit more rational minded. So what is Math based on then if not rational thought? Astrology?

Let me explain why your two comments here indicate the depth of your ignorance.

1. Science does not "confirm mathematical concepts". Maths confirms mathematical concepts. Some mathematical concepts are used in science; many have no scientific application whatsoever; nonetheless they remain mathematics.

2. "Jesus wept" is a common expletive used to indicate incredulity, specifically at stupidity. Sasguru's use in this case is to show that he thinks you're an imbecile (because of your first comment). It in no way indicates that he is religious - any more than Einstein's "God does not play dice", or "God created the integers, all else is of man".

Ironically, your response to his response to your first comment only increases the evidence that you really are incredibly thick, and probably shouldn't be allowed out to play by your mummy.