Another major scientific breakthrough!

[rvg]

So all I have to do is introduce "measurable" units that your mind feels more comfortable with? Thereby giving you a direct physical example of Math at work? Alright, the cm will do nicely: substitute 1cm for 1, therefore 13cm for 13. Using this convention, factorising 8 into its prime factors is simply a matter of taking a length of 8cm and dividing it into parts each of 2cm. So tell me now how can you not physically demonstrate that 13cm cannot possibly be split into smaller, equal parts which are a whole (integer) multiple of the cm and larger than 1cm? How is that not empirical?

How is it empirical? Does a number exist in a physical world?

[Tellos Athenaios]

How is it empirical? Does a number exist in a physical world?

A number is a quantity, nothing more.

[Fragony]

A number is a quantity, nothing more.

A quantity is a quantity, seems like numbers just don't cut it

[Tellos Athenaios]

A quantity is a quantity, seems like numbers just don't cut it

How?

[Fragony]

How?

From your link, a cube can apparentlty by devided into two cubes, that is not possible yet can be proven mathematically

[Tellos Athenaios]

From your link, a cube can apparentlty by devided into two cubes, that is not possible yet can be proven mathematically

A cube cannot be partitioned in this way, that is exactly what Fermat's Last Theorem states (when considering cubes n = 3, therefore n > 2) and it is mathematically proven to be impossible. I think you misread?

[Fragony]

A cube cannot be partitioned in this way, that is exactly what Fermat's Last Theorem states (when considering cubes n = 3, therefore n > 2) and it is mathematically proven to be impossible. I think you misread?

Possibly, but I think you misunderstood, read again

[Tellos Athenaios]

Possibly, but I think you misunderstood, read again

Which bit? From "my link":

It is impossible to separate a cube into two cubes, or a biquadrate into two biquadrates, or in general any power higher than the second into two powers of the like degree; I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.

For the "biquadrate" (fourth power) case, Fermat's earlier assertion is sufficient to imply the later one: if two fourth powers cannot sum to a perfect square, they cannot sum to a fourth power either (since any fourth power, say w⁴, is also a perfect square, namely, the square whose side measures w²). But Fermat was asserting much more. In modern notation Fermat's assertion – known to mathematicians as Fermat's last theorem, or FLT for short – states that the equation xⁿ + yⁿ = zⁿ has no solution if x, y and z all are positive integers and n is a whole number greater than 2.

[Fragony]

Which bit? From "my link":

That's too hard for me, you are talking to a mavo c here. But it's pretty obvious that it are the actual methods that are on trial here. If you can be a wizard with the numbers the numbers are wrong, pure and simple

[rvg]

A number is a quantity, nothing more.

Where in nature can I find 731?

[Montmorency]

I see it on my screen right here.

[rvg]

I see it on my screen right here.

Can you weigh it?

[Montmorency]

Some multiple of 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms, presumably.

[rvg]

Some multiple of 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms, presumably.

And that's the weight of what?

[Montmorency]

Lies.

[rvg]

Lies.

Indeed.

[Montmorency]

Electrons, my mistake.

Lies are heavier.

[Askthepizzaguy]

They make baby jesus cry.

Weigh baby Jesus for me.

Also, God.

[HoreTore]

Where in nature can I find 731?

This is a fundamental misconception of what mathemathics is. An extremely common one, but still fundamentally wrong.

Mathematics is not abstract. Not in any way whatsoever. One can use abstract thinking to solve problems, like in every other scientific field, but the basis of mathematics will always be the natural world. Numbers exist because they are the names we have given to sizes we find in the world.

731 is easily found, just buy 731 apples, put them on the table before you and voila.

[rvg]

This is a fundamental misconception of what mathemathics is. An extremely common one, but still fundamentally wrong.

Mathematics is not abstract. Not in any way whatsoever. One can use abstract thinking to solve problems, like in every other scientific field, but the basis of mathematics will always be the natural world. Numbers exist because they are the names we have given to sizes we find in the world.

731 is easily found, just buy 731 apples, put them on the table before you and voila.

No, no. I'm not looking for 731 apples, or 731 electrons or 731 widgets.
I'm looking for 731.

[HoreTore]

No, no. I'm not looking for 731 apples, or 731 electrons or 731 widgets.
I'm looking for 731.

Then you are looking for something different than what mathematicians look for.

It's like saying astronomy is unscientific because you can't see any stars in your waste basket.

[rvg]

Then you are looking for something different than what mathematicians look for.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that all this time mathematicians had apples in mind. Thank you for enlightening me.

[HoreTore]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that all this time mathematicians had apples in mind. Thank you for enlightening me.

No problem!

[Populus Romanus]

Can you weigh it?

Weight is irrelevant. The photon, for instance, has no mass at all. Still exists.

[rvg]

Weight is irrelevant. The photon, for instance, has no mass at all. Still exists.

Love also exists, but it's not an empirical object. Anyway, the idea of numbers being anything but abstract is so stupid, I'm not even gonna discuss it. Next thing I'll be hearing is that the Earth is flat.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Love also exists, but it's not an empirical object. Anyway, the idea of numbers being anything but abstract is so stupid, I'm not even gonna discuss it. Next thing I'll be hearing is that the Earth is flat.

numbers aren't abstract, they're an abstraction - they are a sign used to represent a concrete reality.

[HoreTore]

Love also exists, but it's not an empirical object. Anyway, the idea of numbers being anything but abstract is so stupid, I'm not even gonna discuss it. Next thing I'll be hearing is that the Earth is flat.

No need for me to say much more, I'll hand the microphone over to PVC:

numbers aren't abstract, they're an abstraction - they are a sign used to represent a concrete reality.

Spot on.

Numbers are a generalization of a concrete reality.

[Papewaio]

That would be natural science, ie. biology, physics and chemistry, not science.

Everything else is stamp collecting...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everything else is stamp collecting...

Ugh.

At least you're being an equal-opportunities knucklehead.

Lets go through the hierarchy of Philosophy again: we progress downwards, each branch being a descendant of higher branches. So, at the top we have metaphysics, of which the highest part is epistemology - once we have decided that we accept that we can now things, even though we can't conclusively prove them guess what comes next?

Mathematics - without the basic principles of which we could not operate logic.

[Papewaio]

Paraphrase was from Rutherford and I normally sig when I'm whimsical.

Philosophy isnt science neither is mathematics.

Mathematics is a subset of philosophy.

Science a subset of mathematics.

However a container is not the fluid and not all rectangles are squares.

If a superset = a set 1:1 then they are the same. Maths is science plus something more.