Mathematics suffers horribly from semantic sharding and syntactic shambling. How did such symbolic elitism arise in the first place?

Mathematics suffers horribly from semantic sharding and syntactic shambling. How did such symbolic elitism arise in the first place?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Top part of pic does not imply the bottom.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have only ever viewed memes as attention translation methods and thusly only judge it on the criteria of how effective it was in either directing or distributing discussion of a given idea, topic, or concept.

      I have yet to encounter a superior approach to the one I list out in the paragraph above.

      >hyper-detailed expatiationist
      >N-Set Descriptor Theorist

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you want to know why there are math symbols just look at math before symbols were common:

    “Let AC and BC be line segments that lie perpendicular to each other. Construct a line segment AB. Then should a square be constructed with AB on one side, a square constructed with AC on one side, and a square constructed with BC on one side, then it shall be that the sum of the areas of the squares constructed on AC and BC shall be equal to the area of the square constructed on the side AB.”

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I understand the need for semiotics my question is more how does any given symbol reach mass utilization? Is there any known equation for applicability of solution?

      For example my mathematics discipline avoids using subtraction unless it is at the end of an equation or part of some fine-grained filtration process. This is because for us mathematics is simply the practice of encoding the processes known as encapsulation, iteration, and summation. Using subtraction would be akin to committing suicide or demanding action on the part of the unique summation interpreter.

      >Sub-question: Does mathematics have this effect on all languages?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is your discipline schizophrenia?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is your inability to interpret another person's language something that makes you reach for psychological terminology?

          >word salad
          No matter how hard you try to be pseudointellectual, math will remain true and philosophy will remain useless.

          Argumentation still remains argumentation. Rather than presupposing my position how about you attempt to advance the topic at hand?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So that's a yes.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Why query as if my reply holds any meaningful value to you when you've demonstrated already a dominant desire to dismiss or discard whatever discussion might be had from the topic at hand?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                OK schizo.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how about you attempt to advance the topic at hand?
            Your failure to understand simple mathematical equations is not a topic worthy of discussion.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >word salad
        No matter how hard you try to be pseudointellectual, math will remain true and philosophy will remain useless.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I understand the need for semiotics my question is more how does any given symbol reach mass utilization?

        I think it’s just a community/marketing thing. For example Euler’s notation standardized a lot of the arithmetic symbols we use today because his work was widely read and so served as a Shelling Point among competing notations.

        > Is there any known equation for applicability of solution?

        There are heuristic formulas that have been developed in the field of computer programming language design, but they it isn’t rigorous and not used much since programmers don’t invent widely used programming languages often.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So it would be through standardizations, formalizations, and generalizations? That makes sense. I believe mathematics does suffer from generalized misinterpretation and its applicability. That and how the culture or its artists celebrate mathematical principles via their chosen expressionistic discipline.

          Heuristic formulas I have always been a fan of because in any given case making a wrong guess of any degree aids in the convergence rate of the heuristic reaching its required level approximation or concrete solution. My past includes plenty of exposure to heuristic formulas in the computer programming realm and I do appreciate them but as I think about it now perhaps that line of questioning is now defunct.

          Whole reason I started this thread was to explore the idea of how we can make mathematics more natural in terms of access or presentation as most people tend to feel threatened by even simple arithmetic.

          Possibly interesting sub-query: What would the mathematics of a large-scale farm be? Does anyone know any resources or historical work between mathematicians and farmers?

          [...]
          This is what schizophrenia looks like in its early stages.

          Bart's Fart and Shart isn't funny because "Shart" possesses a "h" that wasn't present in the original "Seed", so it'd really be "Bart's Fart and Sart" which doesn't make any sense.

          Glad I still have your attention. Not sure what it is worth but hey at least I got it.
          >I make observation. I win. hurr durr.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Heuristic formulas I have always been a fan of because in any given case making a wrong guess of any degree aids in the convergence rate of the heuristic reaching its required level approximation or concrete solution.

            Check out Halstead metrics about the “length” and “volume” of computer programs https://search.brave.com/search?q=halsteads%20science%20length%20and%20volume%20&source=ios

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You suffer from linguistic farting and verbal sharting.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >how about you attempt to advance the topic at hand?
      Your failure to understand simple mathematical equations is not a topic worthy of discussion.

      OK schizo.

      And these posts are part of what bait cycle you've repeated how many times before?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bart's Fart and Shart isn't funny because "Shart" possesses a "h" that wasn't present in the original "Seed", so it'd really be "Bart's Fart and Sart" which doesn't make any sense.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        [...]
        And these posts are part of what bait cycle you've repeated how many times before?

        This is what schizophrenia looks like in its early stages.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Math is a subject rooted in history and tradition. We all stand on the work of those who came before. For international ease and as living tribute to the achievement of great minds standard notation and nomenclature in a field is often adopted from seminal papers of said discipline. Sometimes a famous book will present the standard for notation. For example, pi is pi because Euclid called it pi. If he chose another symbol we would be using that symbol. What you see in math is not symbolic elitism, rather a testament that mathematics was made, is being made, by humans for humans. Of course math is not the only field of study where what you ascribe as a problem occurs, so why you chose to single math out i wonder. Every academic branch has its own quirky names and symbols that are totally unrelated to the matter it deals with, and this is for the same reasons i outlined above. Why is a meson called a meson? Literally just because someone called it that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For example, pi is pi because Euclid called it pi.
      Euler* (not Euclid) called many things pi depending on context, including 2pi and pi/2.
      >Euler started using the single-letter form beginning with his 1727 Essay Explaining the Properties of Air, though he used π = 6.28..., the ratio of periphery to radius, in this and some later writing.[110][111] Euler first used π = 3.14... in his 1736 work Mechanica,[112] and continued in his widely-read 1748 work Introductio in analysin infinitorum (he wrote: "for the sake of brevity we will write this number as π; thus π is equal to half the circumference of a circle of radius 1").[113] Because Euler corresponded heavily with other mathematicians in Europe, the use of the Greek letter spread rapidly, and the practice was universally adopted thereafter in the Western world,[103] though the definition still varied between 3.14... and 6.28... as late as 1761.[114]

      Math is rooted in history and tradition, but many things and intuitions were thrown away at the turn between the 19th and 20th century that caused what OP laments, which is against the idea of the rootedness of mathematics in history and tradition. Infinitesimals, for example, were thrown away for almost a century, their symbols remained but not their semantics.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Axioms, definitions, and references are the literal ground all intellectual pursuit stands upon. Axioms for path evaluation, definitions for argument basis, references for supporting findings to evaluate. I chose mathematics purely because from my own life experience I have seen mathematics be reduced from something beautiful to something feared and feel that if mathematics could be given another shot it would be able to demonstrate itself as creative an artform as dance or natural language itself. Of course I would have no idea how to demonstrate this myself, hence the discussion so I can further my interests along these lines.

      >For example, pi is pi because Euclid called it pi.
      Euler* (not Euclid) called many things pi depending on context, including 2pi and pi/2.
      >Euler started using the single-letter form beginning with his 1727 Essay Explaining the Properties of Air, though he used π = 6.28..., the ratio of periphery to radius, in this and some later writing.[110][111] Euler first used π = 3.14... in his 1736 work Mechanica,[112] and continued in his widely-read 1748 work Introductio in analysin infinitorum (he wrote: "for the sake of brevity we will write this number as π; thus π is equal to half the circumference of a circle of radius 1").[113] Because Euler corresponded heavily with other mathematicians in Europe, the use of the Greek letter spread rapidly, and the practice was universally adopted thereafter in the Western world,[103] though the definition still varied between 3.14... and 6.28... as late as 1761.[114]

      Math is rooted in history and tradition, but many things and intuitions were thrown away at the turn between the 19th and 20th century that caused what OP laments, which is against the idea of the rootedness of mathematics in history and tradition. Infinitesimals, for example, were thrown away for almost a century, their symbols remained but not their semantics.

      Interesting. I wonder how much mathematics was developed out of a mathematician's idle or down time? I ask because usually when someone creates/invents they can get lost in the forest of semantics and synonyms and can require differentiating between distributable work and 'ke-boiwannaseeifothersfallforthis' presentation styles.

      > Heuristic formulas I have always been a fan of because in any given case making a wrong guess of any degree aids in the convergence rate of the heuristic reaching its required level approximation or concrete solution.

      Check out Halstead metrics about the “length” and “volume” of computer programs https://search.brave.com/search?q=halsteads%20science%20length%20and%20volume%20&source=ios

      Had a quick read. Rather fascinating. Length & vocabulary seems to be defined as the total & unique count of operators and operands with the volume appearing to be some sort of upper-level log chain.
      Question: Isn't it virtually impossible for a language to be self-contained? As in created by a sole user for a sole user's purpose? Or is that simply the concept of identity at work?

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    maths and physics "nomenclature" is just very inferior compared to biology and chemistry. they use the same symbols for trillion things instead of inventing new ones. in non trivial nomenclatures you can literally draw a very complex molecule from just knowing its name. in maths there are multiple different notations for differentiation, all mean the same thing but are used for different contexts because of arbitrary reasons

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yes, fields that have no purpose other than naming things do tend to have a more robust naming system than fields that are primarily focused on describing the fundamental interactions the things may be involved in

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Hillari22

    I don't understand why they came up with such complex equations in mathematics. Very few people use them. I recently considered limits and continuity, could not stand it and used https://plainmath.net/post-secondary/calculus-and-analysis/differential-calculus/limits-and-continuity for this. They helped me right away very quickly. Just not realistic, very hard for me. The mind just explodes. Basically, something like this....

Your email address will not be published.