One cannot understand philosophy without having a firm grasp

>>2606599
-7

IT'S 9

>>2606599
(9-3)/((1/3)+1)
6/((1/3)+3/3)
6/(4/3)
6/4/3/1=6/4 x 1/3=6/12=1/2

Answer: 1/2 or 0,5

>>2606599

THAT STATEMENT IS FALSE.

PHILOSOPHY, AND MATHEMATICS, ARE TWO DIFFERENT, AND MUTUALLY DISTINCT, DISCIPLINES; NEITHER IS CONTINGENT ON THE OTHER.

PHILOSOPHY IS CONCERNED WITH THE TRUTH BEYOND REALITY; MATHEMATICS IS CONCERNED WITH THE ABSTRACTION, AND THE REPRESENTATION, OF REALITY.

File: 1491153998793.png (317KB, 399x348px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 399x348px

>>2606606
this
>>2606602
>>2606603
>>2606605
you are literal retards who didn't pass grade 2

>>2606599
1?
3/1/3=9, 9+1=10, 10-9 = 1

>>2606599
-3/3=-1
9-1+1=9

File: american education.jpg (72KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x600px

>>2606602
>>2606603
>>2606605
>>2606618

File: 99c8edbcb035faa679259b80c9727cab.jpg (28KB, 524x336px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 524x336px

> Anno Domini 2016+1
>there are people who don't know pemdas
Maybe serfdom wasn't so bad.

1 Brakets
2.Multiplication and division
3.sums and substractions
All of them from left to right so.
-3/1/3=-9
9-9+1=1

>>2606610
Pemdas is completely arbitrary and not a rigorous mathematical statement. Use parenthesis if you ever want to be explicit. I still can't believe they teach something as usless and arbitrary in math classes.
>>2606609
While correct in principle, the skills you gain with math highy enhance your ability to deal rigorously in different layers of abstraction. It also gives you methods to deconstruct problems to analyze them in many creative and out-of-the-box way. Many things about modern logic are modeled with topology.

Also, you are massive faggot attention whore.

>>2606609
You are right dude, but don't you think your wisdom would be more appreciated at more populated places? I think a lot more people would listen to you at /pol/ than on /his/

>>2606599
Name mathematical fields other than logic which aid in understanding philosophy.

File: 1491106098909.jpg (132KB, 1469x1000px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1469x1000px

>>2606637
We should switch to Reverse Polish Notation imo.

mai waifu unrelated

>>2606649
>suggesting a board just as terrible

>>2606609

>there is something "behind" reality

lol

>>2606652
It's the same argument that philosophers make when someone asks for an application of philosophy. Obviously there are not going to be cases where a philosopher needs to solve some equation when dealing with ethics, but math can give you many secondary traits that people dismiss too often. Its generates a different kind of eskeptisism which can be useful with many different questions. This doesn't mean you can use verbose like Lacan to say retatded shit, but you can translate the methods in some sense.

File: zeno btfo.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>2606652
calculus

>>2606637
>While correct in principle, the skills you gain with math highy enhance your ability to deal rigorously in different layers of abstraction. It also gives you methods to deconstruct problems to analyze them in many creative and out-of-the-box way. Many things about modern logic are modeled with topology.

NO.

PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING IS PRIMARILY SYNTHETICAL, AND SECONDARILY ANALYTICAL; MATHEMATICAL THINKING IS ENTIRELY ANALYTICAL.

PHILOSOPHERS CAN ALSO BE MATHEMATICIANS, BUT MATHEMATICIANS CAN NEVER BE PHILOSOPHERS.

File: Kurt_gödel.jpg (22KB, 212x270px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 212x270px

>>2606685
>MATHEMATICAL THINKING IS ENTIRELY ANALYTICAL

naw

>>2606691

HOW IS IT NOT ENTIRELY ANALYTICAL, ACCORDING TO YOU?

>>2606685
>>2606697
Not really sure what you mean by synthetical and analytical, but mathematics uses boths. Depends on exactly what is your goal and what is the subfield.

>>2606706
>Not really sure what you mean by synthetical and analytical...
>... but mathematics uses boths [SIC].

...

Well I'm fucked then.

>>2606708
Well, either you don't know jack shir about math or we have different interpretations of analytical/synthetical thinking.

>>2606697
>analytic proposition: a proposition whose truth depends solely on the meaning of its terms
>first incompleteness theorem: Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2019891

>>2606712

THE MISUNDERSTANDING IS DUE TO YOUR IGNORING WHAT THE WORDS "SYNTHETICAL", AND "ANALYTICAL", MEAN, WHILST USING THEM.

>>2606713

AND?

>>2606668
Thank you.

>>2606720
From what I understand of the terms, I find them that both type of mental processes are used often in math. You, like many other people who haven't done math in a while think that math research is literally proving things from axioms (at least you didn't say it's about making calculations). Mathrmatics has existed long before the rigorous standards where created and even today there is no consensus on what to consider a rigorous standard, so there have been many arguments in math that aren't really completely analytical. Also, many fields and generalisations in math aren't a logical consecuence of the axioms, but definitions that were build upon a period of building an intuition of a particular subject and realizing what are ghe fundamental properties that binds them. Abasttac algebra is a good example of this and I think doing that is a pretty good example of a synthetic process.

>>2606755
To further on abstract algebra. It literally studies objects that are characterized by things we observed to happen in many mathematical structures. For anyone who doesn't have a grasp of more basic math this subject would appear completely impenetrable even though you don't require any previous knowledge. This kind of intuition is not really analythical.

17

Durch

File: Think.png (547KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 600x800px

9-3:(1/3)+1=
=9-3*3+1=
=9-9+1=
=0+1=
=1

>>2606599

So Wittgenstein couldn't understand philosophy? Alright

File: William_Blake_-_Nebuchadnezzar.jpg (132KB, 642x726px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 642x726px

>>2606599
One.

>>260659
Good lord guys, it's 9

>>2606657
There are "superior" realities that are blocked to ones of an inferior state, so to speak.

>>2606599
It's 1, you tards

>>2606599
-1/12

>>>/sci/

File: 247.png (1002B, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

1002B, 200x200px

>>2606599
If you think this means 9 - (3/(1/3)) + 1 the answer is 1

If you think this means ((9 - 3)/(1/3)) +1 the answer is 19

If you think this means 9 - (3/(1/3 + 1)) the answer is 6(3/4)

This whole problem exists solely because of ambiguity. If this was actually laid out properly, this wouldn't even be debated.

Honestly, pic related should permanently banned because it's ruining basic mathematical discourse.

>>2607469
You're fucking retarded, m8.

>>2606609
you again

>>2607506
What's you're answer then?

>>2606599
9.01

>>2606622
To be fair on all the tards, that picture has some terrible fucking kerning and general formatting.

Obviously 16 though.

>>2607469
There are no parenthesis to denote what portions are to be quantified, and so sticking to order of operations it will equal 1.

>>2607561
And what order of operations did you decide to use?

>>2606653
>We should switch to Reverse Polish Notation imo.

Why not Polish notation?

>>2606637
>>2607587
Good question. I'd say he probably used the one that's ubiquitous, that people default to in every field and that's taught to almost everyone in grade school, regardless of country.

None of y'all are impressing anybody by pointing out that the order of operations is an arbitrary convention. EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS IT'S A CONVENTION. You're not clever.

Unless stated otherwise, or in fairly specialized contexts, it's assumed that an expression will follow the standard order of operations.

>>2607626
It's not as ubiquitous as you think it is if different people are consistently coming up with different answers.

>>2607661
That's not because they're using a different order of operations. Even in fields where occasionally you end up using a different one (e.g. strictly left to right) for whatever reason, the standard one remains ... well, standard.

When people get it wrong it's because they were incorrectly taught or because they've forgotten, both of which are very common.

Also, people have been posting images like this on here and also on Facebook and shit for more than 10 years, and everybody knows it's a great way to get people yelling at each other and calling each other stupid, so you have to bear in mind that 1/2 of the "wrong" answers in a thread like this are gonna be bait.

>>2607516
>A regular user of this website has made another post...

Wow...

>>2607626
>EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS IT'S CONVENTION.
If you actually looked at the facebook comments when someone posta this stupid shit, you will find out that few people actually believe that. Also in all my years in STEM there wasn't a time a recall that I had to remember the order of operations because everyone knows it's better to just leave shit clear.

>>2606609
>PHILOSOPHY IS CONCERNED WITH THE TRUTH BEYOND REALITY
A more idiotic reply could not be caps-locked. Not even by (You).

>>2606599
PEMDAS
E
M
D
A
S

The answer is 1.

>>2607707
>A cancerous attention whore tripfag has made another post.

>>2606654
>not spotting sarcasm
Maybe it's time to try interacting with people in real life?

>>2607548
To be fair that picture is a hoax photoshop.

>>2606599
3 divided by 1/3 = 3 x 3 = 9

so it becomes 9 - (9) +1 = 1

>>2606609
the irony behind this post is that you prove the OP right

the implication behind the OP is that logic is so firmly explored and refined in mathematics that it is impossible to claim to understand philisophy or think philosophically if you cannot express your understanding of logic through extremely simple mathematics

you being unable to understand this implication proves that you are shit at logic. Your unwillingness to attempt the math problem implies that you are probably bad at math. By being bad at logic and math, you provide evidence that OP is correct by being bad at philosphy and math at the same time because of your inability to think logically

i cant :(

>>2606622
what a shitty slide

the Old way (PEMDAS) gives you 16 too

>P
2*2 = 4
so then you have 20 / 5 * 4

you perform multiplication and division at the same step and in sequential order, so it's (20/5) * 4 = 4*4 = 16

>>2606599
Its 1

>>2606599
It's -1

Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand PEMDAS, and is probably American too.

>>2606599
what does this have to do with history

>>2606599
Parenthesis and exponents
>none, move on
Multiplacation and division
>3/(1/3) = 3*3 = 9, move on
Addition and subtraction
>work left to right, 9-9=0, 0+1=1
Answer is 1

>>2608300
>and in sequential order
No.

>>2607600
Polish notation is objectively worse than RPN.

>>2609823
yes you moron

when you have
>20 / 5 * 4

which do you do first? multiplication or division? you have to pick one. You cannot do them at the same time.

(20/5)*4 = 16
20/(5*4) = 1

You have to pick one because they are different answers, so you do them in sequential order because that's what makes sense if you aren't retarded
>>2609507
nice b8

>>2606609
go to bed shia

File: cajori.jpg (76KB, 645x296px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 645x296px

>>2610099
>You have to pick one because they are different answers, so you do them in sequential order because that's what makes sense if you aren't retarded
Or you don't write ambiguous expressions.

>>2610139
I completely agree

but with the present notation you have to follow sequentially. The other way doesn't make sense at all.

>>2606609
Your assertion is correct however Mathematics is a discipline within the umbrella term of Philosophy, that is, if you consider "natural philosophy" to by Philosophy.
This can be demonstrated in the idea that PEMDAS is a rule meant to govern mathematical procedure in the context of mathematical symbols, but PEMDAS isn't a part of some sort of 'natural' mathematical axiom, it is simply a rule for consistency and formatting, not a law.

>>2606599
1

9-3:1/3+1
9-(3:1/3)+1
9-(3*3)+1
9-9+1
0+1
1

>>2606599
is "1/3" represent "1/3" or "1 divided by 3". I realize they have the same value, but its kind of important when we're talking about the succession of terms...

>>2606609

The truth is that Mathematics is concerned only with the truth behind mathematics.

The whole point of math is building on a few statements you believe to be true without any doubt, and finding other true statements that are a result of those statements being assumed to be true.

>>2608288
the statement is the opposite though, you can't do mathematics without philosophy, not the other way around.

>>2610192
>you can't do mathematics without philosophy, not the other way around
both statements are true

>>2610195
additive and subtraction language and rhetoric are not [necessarily] mathematics. so no, philosophy comes first