Could it be that most of higher mathematics, eg stuff like arithmetic

ya
a lot of modern math is nu-male hippie shit, and not actual math

>>8214594
Isn't it genius tp sokal your university into appreciating you work and paying you?

Could it be that you're just too much of a brainlet to understand it?

>>8214590
wtf that isn't high level

come back when you've learned about triple integrals my friend

>>8215535
>triple integrals
>hard
(You)

Everything that's based on axioms that are not true in the real world is a pile of crap

>>8215550
>triple integrals
>easy
(You)

>>8215553
Math has nothing to do with the real world

It's all imaginary

>>8215559
When the axioms find equivalence in the real world, it does have something to do

>>8215561
At best they are approximations

There are no circles or spheres in the real world

>>8215569
>no spheres
>earth
Nigga u wat

>>8215572
I didn't know spheres, or even ellipsoids, had mountains and valleys

I completely agree with you, at some point, academia becomes so esoteric that unless you're completely involved and obsessed with the subject that you can understand what's happening, and even then, most of it is jsut work that's been fabricated in order to justify all the "grant money" that they're getting from the government.

>>8215575
This is why all research should be privately funded

File: earth-147591_960_720.png (209KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 720x720px

>>8215574
The earth is a sphere moron.

>>8215577
But then only companies decide the progress of science, and unfortunately that's not something I'd like. A double knifed sword unfortunately.

>>8215583
>not something I'd like

didn't kno u were the fkn arbiter of what happens in the academy jeez

>>8215561
Sure, but how many branches of mathematics abolish the thought of the infinite? Because infinity clearly doesn't have any parallels to the physical world. I figure that was what OP was on about when he said "nonsense".

And as for >>8214590, keep in mind that it's perfectly viable to have mathematics which don't correspond to our current understanding of reality. Not only because different maths model different systems and methods which are useful in different contexts and situations, but also because math for the sake of math is a fun diversion and good practice in creativity and inductive and deductive logic.

>>8215578
So the north pole is infinity or?

>>8215605
Yes the world is a Bloch sphere. Get with the times.

>>8214590
Of course it's nonsense. It happens to be so that nonsense helps us understand sensible things, though.

>>8215605
The Earth's surface is homotopy equivalent to the sphere under the most sensible topology (metric topology from being embedded in R^3), and the fibrant replacement is a CW complex: the sphere.

Topological results apply to the Earth. For example, I can tell you that there is a loop around Earth's surface at any given moment such that every point has the same temperature, or pressure, or sea level. Isn't that cool to you?

File: 1.jpg (78KB, 750x422px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 750x422px

>>8215745

>a loop where every point on
>the surface of the sea level
>has the same distance to earth's
>core

Are you fucking with me?
How could that be true

>>8215809

Take a math class and you'll find out. Oh wait, math class is just a way for the evil hippie liberal media to control you, meaning you did do the right thing when you dropped out of high school.

File: 1.jpg (37KB, 402x402px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 402x402px

>>8215823

I am majoring in chemistry. But ok

>>8215809
If it didn't exist, then the Ulam-Borsuk theorem is false, because I used that theorem to arrive at the conclusion. Assigning sea level to every point on the surface of the Earth is continuous with respect to the topology I described. So, we have a map [math] s:S^{2}\to \mathbb{R} [/math]. I forgot the details of my proof (I wrote it a year ago), but I basically found a way that Ulam-Borsuk generalizes up to guaranteeing a nondegenerate 1-sphere being assigned to a fixed value rather than just a nondegenerate 0-sphere.

The loop may be a small loop, mind you. Choose some island; you can imagine that there has to be some ring around it with the same sea level, since all of its sides go down into the ocean. That sort of thing can satisfy this existence theorem.

since when did adding positive numbers turn into negative fractions

>>8215832

Wow
>only true for radii of 0

You know that such a makroscopic thing like a beach of an island sounds pretty retarded if you image what sea is made of.

Water molcules

So you statement would be true if you observe for an infinite amount of time, but not at every instantaneous moment

>>8215827
Really makes me think

>>8215569
So what? Approximately true models give approximately accurate results, by continuity.

>>8215578
The Earth is most certainly not a sphere. Spheres don't have differing elevation levels.

>>8215553
I guess geometry is fucked then.
>implying you can draw a "line"

>reddit

File: 1463190041553.jpg (51KB, 604x340px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 604x340px

>>8215535

>>8215931
Since when did adding an infinite amount of rational number give a finite result? You need a whole lot of machinery for that.

>>8216174
What are you even saying?

If regard the water as part of the surface of the Earth, the theorem works. It's still homeomorphic to a 2-sphere.

If you regard only the ground, it's still a 2-sphere, modulo overhangs. Please clarify what you are saying, because the topology I defined takes into account that everything is made of molecules.

File: 1435723409003_1.png (192KB, 501x445px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 501x445px

>>8214590
>reddit

>>8215578
It literally isn't, retard.

>>8216895
Difference from a sphere are litterally less than the variations on a cue ball

>>8214590
>redditposting
Could you go back to gorillaposting? At least gorillas are intelligent.

>>8216325
>what is chaos theory

>>8216905
Which also isn't a sphere.

>>8215553
>implying you can ever know whether your axioms are true

laughing_hume.jpg

>>8214590
When someone brilliant revolutionizes mathematics by inventing a new field, like Grothendieck's algebraic geometry or Lurie's work on infinity-categories, it's natural that few other people at the time will understand. Sometimes it takes many years for enough people to understand and enough details to be filled in before the mathematical community decides that yes, it does make sense. Sometimes they decide that no, it doesn't really make sense and the guy writing this shit is a complete loon.

It's pretty tough, you have to put a lot of faith into people's abilities to referee papers and books. Every so often you'll hear a horror story about someone publishing a paper in a prestigious journal and then 10 years later someone finds an error and the result ends up being totally wrong. By and large though, these papers are relatively minor and don't purport to change the face of mathematics or anything. I'd still wager that at least 95% percent of all math papers don't contain major errors or reference papers which do.

It's kind of hard to maintain the ideal of complete rigor, I guess that's what I'm trying to get at.

>>8215535
when someone reads "arithmetic geometry" and assumes they meant "analytic geometry"

>>8217545
Axioms can't be false. Why does nobody on this board understand the concept of an axiom? It's not even complicated.

>>8217691
You don't really think arithmetic geometry is high-level do you?

>>8215574
when someone doesn't realize that smooth embeddings don't need to be conformal

>>8217545
Look at this brainlet who quotes Hume without knowing what Hume actually said.

>>8215575
> most of it is jsut work that's been fabricated in order to justify all the "grant money"

LOOOOOL no, I assure you, there are people who do mathematics because they think it's important, and acquire grant money by being able to convince others of the same. And historically yes, mathematics has been important.

>>8215556
>there exists no intermediate between hard and easy
(You)

>>8216507
what is convergence

>>8217711
Look at this brainlet who doesn't know what a quote is

>>8217719
You don't know what that is? It's simple algebra, anon.

>>8215809
>>8215832
Do you really need the Ulam-Borsuk theorem? If you assume the temperature function $S^2\to \mathbb{R}$ is smooth and non-constant, then Sard's theorem assures us that there is at least one regular value, so if you take its inverse-image then you get a closed 1-manifold (i.e. a disjoint union of circles) where the temperature function is constant.

>>8217696
>clearly means true to life
>>8215553

>>8217699
It's advanced enough that most mathematicians never learn it.

>>8216905
It's an oblate spheroid you insignificant mouthbreathing brainstem.

>>8217730
Is there a version of Sard's theorem for just continuous functions? My result only relies on the temperature function being continuous, so maybe that is why I needed Ulam-Borsuk. I don't know very much analysis, though. Sorry.

>>8215572
That's a ball, it's boundary is a sphere .

>>8219163
Kek. Someone cut the British vs American English differences in spheres, balls, circles, disks, and circumferences.

>>8217686 Well, it's not completely bizarre math papers don't usually have errors? I wouldn't expect that. Why is that?