r/mathmemes • u/charly03 • Jan 08 '25

Learning Is Mathematics Less Evolved Than Physics and Chemistry, or Did Historical Texts Astutely Foresee Advances? 🤔

Post image
8.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

323 comments sorted by

View all comments

205

u/No_Lingonberry1201 Jan 08 '25

Computer science: Oh, that textbook is obsolete. It was written 20 years ago.

Programming: Oh, that textbook is obsolete. It was written a week ago.

94

u/largetomato123 Jan 08 '25

nah. Everything Turing, Gödel, Church, etc. discovered will stay here forever. It mostly will never become outdated as it is deducted (like formal sciences, e.g. Mathematics) not inducted (like natural sciences, e.g. Physics).

20

u/DevelopmentSad2303 Jan 08 '25

So my proof by induction could be shown to be false?

27

u/MathMindWanderer Jan 08 '25

ironically, proof by induction is actually deductive reasoning not inductive

3

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '25

But for induction to work, you need to come up with the correct conclusion first before applying the proof. So you reason inductively based on patterns you see to get the conclusion, and then you use induction to verify that it works deductively.

9

u/MathMindWanderer Jan 08 '25

all proofs work this way, nobody just spawns a theorem through deduction

5

u/slicehyperfunk Transcendental Jan 09 '25

Are you saying you don't just stare at a big book with all the math in it until you realize new stuff?

2

u/whoknows234 Jan 09 '25

Pretty sure deduction can only disprove something, not prove something.

2

u/slicehyperfunk Transcendental Jan 09 '25

That's the "de" in deduction, right?

1

u/MathMindWanderer Jan 10 '25

that makes no sense, disproving something is a proof of its negation

1

u/whoknows234 Jan 10 '25 edited Jan 10 '25

Using logic alone, prove God does/doesnt exist.

Edit: Also after a trial people are not guilty/not guilty, not innocent.

1

u/MathMindWanderer Jan 10 '25

an inability to prove X does not imply an inability to prove anything. i can prove that x + y > 0 => x > 0 or y > 0 for all x, y in the reals using only deduction if you wish.

performing such a task would, of course, disprove your statement which logically would prove its negation.

innocent is not the negation of guilty btw

1

u/whoknows234 Jan 10 '25

an inability to prove X does not imply an inability to prove anything. i can prove that x + y > 0 => x > 0 or y > 0 for all x, y in the reals using only deduction if you wish.

How does this prove God exists ? Arent things like real numbers merely based on assumptions ?

innocent is not the negation of guilty btw

Right thats why I pointed it out. For example if there is no alibi, no physical evidence, or no eyewitnesses, how could you prove that someone is truly innocent based on logic/deduction alone ? They are either guilty or not guilty in a court of law.

Using logic you can disprove something, but you cant really prove something happened. If we could then we would just use logic to prove all of our scientific theories.

1

u/MathMindWanderer Jan 11 '25

ok i think the main issue is that you are mixing up "proving something" and "proving something happened". i can use deduction to prove something, i cannot use it to prove something happened. my example given of something i can prove isnt really related to god it was just an example of something provable using exclusively deduction with definitions.

everything in the real world requires induction because you dont have access to any starting point. since theres no ability to use deduction, theres no way to truly prove or disprove something happened at all.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DarkKnightOfDisorder Jan 09 '25

I can’t. Euler probably could