Do you agree with this or do you think it's just a meme?

>sci autists think and do the exact opposite of this

>>7945864
I agree.

>>7945862
This is partially true because even the most complex statements can be summarized and explained in short sentence.

For example, there may be a lot of theory behind functions but you can just say that a function is a map from one space to another and this phrase, while incomplete, immediately creates a mental image of what a function does.

However, this is what is known as popsci understanding. This is what your professor should say in the first introductory lecture.

There's explaining things simply, and then there's explaining things incorrectly.

>Le spacetiem is a trampoline

>>7945862
Oh yeah? Explain gravity simply then..

Oh, can't? Haha nothin personnel kiddo

File: Carl-Sagan.jpg (95KB, 1000x315px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1000x315px

>>7945862

>>7945875
Gravity is when you have an apple and it falls on your head and you invent mathematical analysis.

EZ PZ

>>7945862
That statement proves that 99% of /sci/ are dumb. Every time someone asks a question they get nothing but word-for-word regurgitations of the mathematical theory in the textbook. /sci/ has no imagination and no intuitive ability, they just memorize books, pass exams and think they are geniuses.

>>7945875
A quality possessed by objects with mass that bends spacetime, causing the tendency for objects with mass to approach each other.

>>7945862
You see, NP is like looking for needles in a haystack. It may take a long time, but you will recognize the needles from the hay when you find them.

If P is the same as NP, then there exists a magnet that can extract those needles from the hay much more efficiently than our current clever searching methods.

>inb4 autism

>>7945998
But there is a magnet.

>>7946000
trips don't lie

link to paper?

>>7946002
We've known about magnets for thousands of years. I'm sure Unk published a cuneiform tablet somewhere.

File: 1456012595746.png (76KB, 602x652px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 602x652px

>>7946004
>>7946000
But the needles clearly aren't ferromagnetic.

check the inb4

>>7945862
As others have said, a "simple explanation" of a concept is usually a popsci explanation.

That said, I would like to see a popsci explanation of Yoneda's lemma.

I am pretty sure there are tons of mathematical concepts such that, no matter how well you understand them, you still wouldn't even be able to explain the gist to the layperson.

is Einstein the most overrated genius in history?

>>7946266
Yes, but that doesn't mean he wasn't an incredible genius.

>>7945872
>you can just say that a function is a map from one space to another
How is that not just basically the definition of a function?

>>7945973
I don't think babies know any of those words. Try again.

>>7945862
Language isn't simple.

/thread

>>7946266
Ur mom's the most overrated whore in my bedroom.

>>7945862

Whos the authority on simply?

If I can't explain loop quantum gravity to a bunch of redneck hicks living in a trailer park, is that my fault or the rednecks fault?

If I can teach calculus to a 5 year old that doesn't necessarily mean I understand calculus, just that the 5 year old is a genius.

>>7945862
Yes and no, because some things in my profession I have little or no understanding of in terms of why it actually works, but I can say "It's a thing that does this and it does that when it's this' but I cannot really explain how or why it works.

If some toddler keeps asking me 'why' how that candy bar turns into a turd, I'd come up with evermore elaborate reasons too.

>>7945875
If an object in space has a lot of mass (very heavy) it warps our plane of existence which makes other objects attracted to it.

>>7946515
Explaining things simply and explaining it to retards is to different things. If you don't know what mass is you need to kill yourself.

Explaining very simply that gravity explains a tendency for two objects with mass can move towards each other is very simple. A child could understand it

>>7945862
It's true, but keep in mind that explaining something simply does not mean explaining something with retarded laymen terms and metaphors so that normies can pretend they understand it.
>>7945864
>>7945866
NEETs detected

>>7945862
I feel like the spirit of that quote is true, but there are cases where things just can't be explained that simply.

>>7945875
We don't understand gravity tho

>>7946254
>That said, I would like to see a popsci explanation of Yoneda's lemma.
If you know all of the maps out of some object, then you know what the object is.

>>7945862
Op here, I feel like in terms of math and such you really don't understand it until you can break it up into simpler concepts. I mean, there's usually that time when it clicks and you realize its not as complicated as you thought. But never even got into calculus, so i'm not really one to talk.

>>7945862
Would that mean most of /sci/ doesn't understand a damn thing about physics?

To an extent, yes. Although with math, it is harder to explain things in layman terms since the motivation sometimes has little to do with the physical world. For example, it is fairly easy to give a handwavy idea of concepts in geometry, analysis or probability because these fields were designed to model "real-life" phenomena.
However, it is much more difficult for a number of subjects in algebra or logic because the motivation for many of the concepts is to study math more efficiently.

>>7946537

>missing the point

It's not about being dumb or smart it's about understanding a concept well enough that you can break it down so that those who aren't familiar with it can understand it too.

>>7947643
Very well.

Following your lead, here's the popsci explanation of forcing:

Splay the truth values of a conditional extensional structure over a partial order, and then a totally random maximal upward-closed subset, called a "filter", collapses said conditional extensional structure to a boolean-valued one via binary truth defined as membership of the many-valued truth function in that filter. The result is the forcing extension.

Layman doesn't mean "total retard who dropped out of elementary school," but changes depending on what you're studying. This is simply somebody uneducated in your subject, but with the necessary background to grasp the basics.

>>7947708
I didn't mean "object" or "map" in any rigorous sense. I used no jargon and wrote an incredibly simple sentence. Nice try.

>>7945875
i don't understand well enough. and you too.

File: feynman-bongos2.jpg (722KB, 1543x2128px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 1543x2128px

weeeeeewoooooooweeeeeewoooooooweeeeeewoooooooweeeeeewoooooooweeeeeewoooooooweeeeeewoooooooweeeeeewoooooooweeeeeewoooooooweeeeeewooooooo

File: etgntj.jpg (237KB, 736x698px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 736x698px

>>7945872

>tries to give a simple explanation of functions by giving their fucking definition

Either way, this quote is a meme among physicists. Feynmann had the same kind of outlook. But this is doesn't translate as well to abstract esoteric mathematics.

>>7948038
that is not a definition, that's the simple explanation. a definition is that it's a subset of AxB such that no two pairs have the same first element and for each a in A there's a pair with first term a.

the quote is very true in anything.

>>7945875
Gravity is the matter off fact in tending to the inclination for things to relate to each other through spacial interaction, even at its most slightest.

Put simpler, gravity is the motivating agent in the apparent ( via the scientific lens ) tendency towards any kind of absolutes.

If that's not simple enough, then you probably could do with a story about some dude standing between an apple and the earth and the Apple falling, apparently towards him, but then bouncing off of him and descending further toepwards the mass of earth below the man's feet.

Now imagine the guy that represents a function that provides critical points in an interaction between any two apparent objects ( two equations ) and note that while you can observe the interaction as it is exists between the two objects there is a root upon which both objects are relying on in their attempt to mind the "motivating" agent.

Now it fits math and philosophy.

It's like things are afraid of being slung off by gravity or released from it so they adhere to its will for fear of losing favor. Hence, the gravity of the situation.

>>7945862
but what is really understanding?

Wise words

If all things are made of energy, or can be expended as energy, and energy has in its participle the notion of light as a mediation of energy then maybe all things are made up of light in extreme densities, as per a single dimension. That then could mean that as actuation requires a lot of energy out of any motivating force, some of its relay gets entangled with that of other objects and that the variation in light propensity causes the object to move with the light ast its most concentrated effort. So light as energy makes up this object after billions upon billions of particles mesh together to interact and then when the light becomes focused elsewhere it releases the object back to the other end of the concentrated state and continues this tug of war with the other particles between it and any other objects at beyond astronomical rates, which causes a sort of riptide effect that then appears to attract other objects. And the more seamless motion of gravity being further evidence of the objects moving along the path set by the energy variance which could to explain why the earth pivots as it spins and rotates. The invariant energy it encroaches upon further pooling the tide and motion.

I've always thought that it was having the ability to explain something complicated, simply.

>>7946537

Lets say someone with a PHD in physics is trying to explain quantum mechanics to a group of engineers with master degrees.

Obviously he won't be able to do so in a simple manner.

Is this because the PHD person doesn't understand it well enough or that engineers are apes?

>>7948243
>obviously he won't be able to do so in a simple manner
you're terribly wrong. you can abstract and simplify concepts (clearly losing much of the formalism and rigor) to make them explainable to ANYONE. how much you need to chop off to make it digestible depends on the person, of course

>>7945862
I agree with it to a certain extent. But when lazy retards use this quote to blame their teachers for their own laziness I don't agree. Sure, there are bad teachers, but it's the students fault more than they care to admit.
Also, it's obviously a meme you dip

>>7945862
Did Einstein invent every fucking quote on the internet?

>>7945862
I agree.

File: 1452163096525.png (129KB, 600x465px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 600x465px

>>7948334

>>7946279
I'm pretty sure he's underrated by most. Most don't understand how far ahead of his time he was

>>7946510
It's not even that, a map is a more general concept and would also need explanation. PS. a function is a rule that assigns numbers to other numbers.

>>7945862
It's just a meme, but it's not wrong either. I don't usually agree with it, but I can usually explain all the things I understand pretty simply, so he might have been misled by my skillful ability to say stuff.

>>7948475
>Most don't understand how far ahead of his time he was
That happens to anyone that makes great strides in the field of hyperbolic causality.

>>7945862
Well just look at quantum mechanics

>>7945862
Wrong, since this statement bears a number of possible meanings. The most apparent one to me is that 'the understanding of a person for a certain topic is proportionally correlated with his command of a language and eloquence'.
That can't be correct.

>>7946990
well said sir

>>7948490
>function
>requires rules
Spot the undergrad.

>>7948490
>>7948788
er.. I meant to say "requires numbers"
Fuck me. It's 3am. Time to sleep.

>>7948287
Fucking this. One of my middle school students asked me what topology was the other day.

My answer?

"Basically. In extremely reductive terms. It has to do with transforming things continuously from one thing into another thing. Or moving continuously from one place to another."

I have only Calc I knowledge.

Explain to me Hilbert's Basis Theorem and why it works.

>>7948791
The word function is usually reserved for numbers, else you would say map or whatever the field has decided to call their objects.

>>7948861
And the notion that the things you are creating a correspondance between can be anything is soon forgotten after high school, with regards to functions, that is.

>>7945862
If there exists even one case where it's not true, then it's a meme.

I'm interested in a popsci explanation of interuniversal teichmüller theory. Anyone know of a good place to find such a thing?

>>7945862
To understand something well you need to know it's constituting parts together with it's applications to other concepts. The first is done by breaking it into it's simplest elements in order to analyze and explain their different relations to the initial idea as a whole. The second requires using, correcting (if necessary), extending, improving, making predictions, etc. on the information from the first step. The understanding accuracy depends on the extent of which those steps are taken.

Simpler concepts are easier to understand and have more general meanings while more complex ones are harder to understand but are more specific.

I don't agree with the universality of the quote. If you can explain a complex idea simply, it doesn't always mean that you understood it well. It could mean that you can describe it in a high-level way, by "compressing" or simplifying many lower-level details (to the point of oversimplifying), but not that you necessarily know those smaller details or their possible applications (you could just have memorized them) and only have a shallow (or flawed) understanding. If you can't explain it simply, you cold be still understanding it very well, but just be bad at explaining in simple terms (like some teachers or scientists are).

File: 1454289202983.jpg (574KB, 1200x1252px) Image search: [Google]

574KB, 1200x1252px

>>7948441

>>7948914
This.

In fact, let's say I take the sum of all my knowledge that I understand "well enough" to explain simply. Then, presumably, the sum of such a large amount of knowledge would be too large to explain simply, because as a whole it is far too inherently complex. But I understand all of it "well enough" and so I understand it as a whole "well enough" so we have a contradiction.


There you have it OP. It's just a meme.

>>7949471

> In fact, let's say I take the sum of all my knowledge that I understand "well enough" to explain simply. Then, presumably, the sum of such a large amount of knowledge would be too large to explain simply, because as a whole it is far too inherently complex.

But wouldn't the "sum" of anyone's knowledge including your own be simply broken down to numbers, syntax and observation?

Yeah, you miss a whole lot of details but still in the end that's basically what your knowledge boils down too.

>>7949471
That assumes knowledge implies knowledge of knowledge. This is something reasonably refuted in epistemic modal logic.

>>7945862
>If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize
Source: Feynman

>>7949546
>If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize.
> --Feynman
Based. Quote invalidated.

>>7949546
>>7949569
>samefagging this hard

>>7949495
>2016
>epistemic modal logic
the 50's called dude they want their shit tier philosophy back

>>7945973
>bends spacetime

Isn't that theory outdated?

File: Screenshot_2016-03-22-16-26-56.png (348KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1080x1920px

>>7949833
Try again

>>7945872
Truth be told, integrals would have been way easier if explained as "adding small pieces together"

>>7949944
>look I can use inspect element
How new do you think I am

There's a difference between condensing the conclusion, and understanding the concept you're condensing. Also, what is simple to me may not be simple to you, or to most people. I can see where he's coming from but the quote is load of bollocks.

File: Capture.png (54KB, 657x736px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 657x736px

>>7950816
all me :^)

>>7950839
There are only two people on 4chan: you and that other guy.

>>7945862
I remember you posting this a year ago.

>>7951881
4chan isn't that old

>>7951888
Shit, you're right. It was started last year in September by some chink from Japan.

>>7945862
Just a meme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

>>7951901
> implying feynman is an authority
feynman is irrelevant dumb fuck

>>7951908
>dissing Feyngold
You better check yourself before you wreck yourself

It's true, but hearing a simple explanation and then regurgitating it is not sufficient proof that you understand it.

>>7946266
I think so, but maybe I'm a bit biased. I don't like misanthropes in general.
You can be a genius and still be a fuck-awful human being.