Bored? Try this math challenge. :)

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

Suppose there are two points, • •, when you draw a line between them they make one pair, •---•.

With three points you can draw lines to make three pairs:


Define the relationship between the number of points x and the maximum number of pairs you can draw between them y.


Have fun!

No peaking! ;)

x/2*(x-1)=y

Ok, now do it for no overlapping lines :)

"

Disrupted wrote:

I'll just leave this here before going to sleep:

LOL

That's what you get in fake anime schools :P

@SkyCore - Yeah I get that argument and I think people misperceive and frame the argument wrong if they don't understand math. To suggest that math comes only from our human mind creates a whole host of issues in terms of the 'realness' of math. The issue of 'math' as a uniqueness to the human mind becomes more of a discussion about the syntax used to describe it rather than the actual mathematical principles involved. Animals 'count' in many instances but to them it isn't 'math' as we understand because they wouldn't use our syntax but rather an emotional response to hunger or seeing that there are some quantity of something - whatever biology has given them. That doesn't mean they are not using mathematical principles just that they don't know or care that they are. So from that perspective they 'discovered' these mathematical principles and practice them biologically. Then it would be prudent to bring up Godel's incompleteness theorems which is interesting in it's own self contradictory way in the context of math's 'realness'.

But I do agree with people falling into a 'math god' trap. I see theoretical physicists for example do this with unprovable theories and mathematicians will get attached to an idea they are trying to find a proof for because they believe it to be true or because they want it to be true because they think it will give them notoriety.

So ultimately I would say that yes math already existed in the universe but the relationship we as humans have to that math is decided in large part due to the limitations of our biology.

"

Darkfyre wrote:

Spoiler

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

Suppose there are two points, • •, when you draw a line between them they make one pair, •---•.

With three points you can draw lines to make three pairs:


Define the relationship between the number of points x and the maximum number of pairs you can draw between them y.


Have fun!

No peaking! ;)

x/2*(x-1)=y

Ok, now do it for no overlapping lines :)

That's kind of interesting. Gonna tinker with it.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

But I do agree with people falling into a 'math god' trap. I see theoretical physicists for example do this with unprovable theories and mathematicians will get attached to an idea they are trying to find a proof for because they believe it to be true or because they want it to be true because they think it will give them notoriety.

I could approach that from the other end and say mathematicians (and everyone in general) are so eager to show off their superiority of understanding that they reject anything not immediately recognized as 'correct' without fully exploring its potential. There is a difference between being wrong and not conforming to expectations. And at a deep level, i find this to be among the most widespread flaw of mankind.

My theory is that the brain (the physical brain, not the mind) requires some sort of resource when thoroughly thinking through something. Evolution adapted our brain to unconsciously limit potential wasted thought by dismissing things not fully understand. Thus saving internal resources. If so, perhaps there is a drug which can supply excess resources (or the chemical signals involved in monitoring the resource) to the brain. Or both. NZT??

I also think the majority of people are afraid of talking about new concepts. They have learned a social equation subliminally, a formula for how 'conversations should go'. Discussing self-generated novel abstractions, extrapolations, and relations are not a variable in that formula. Hmm, perhaps because such things are not typically discussed... people dont actually learn that they should engage is such things. I dub this meta-level skill, merphing. Every word that ever existed was fabricated by an individual. Or should i say 'discovered' by an individual because all concepts already exist without need of human thought?

MERPHING verb 1) to think about novel abstractions, extrapolations, and relations.

"

SkyCore wrote:

Or should i say 'discovered' by an individual because all concepts already exist without need of human thought?

They don't.

"

SkyCore wrote:

I could approach that from the other end and say mathematicians (and everyone in general) are so eager to show off their superiority of understanding that they reject anything not immediately recognized as 'correct' without fully exploring its potential. There is a difference between being wrong and not conforming to expectations. And at a deep level, i find this to be among the most widespread flaw of mankind.

My theory is that the brain (the physical brain, not the mind) requires some sort of resource when thoroughly thinking through something. Evolution adapted our brain to unconsciously limit potential wasted thought by dismissing things not fully understand. Thus saving internal resources. If so, perhaps there is a drug which can supply excess resources (or the chemical signals involved in monitoring the resource) to the brain. Or both. NZT??

I also think the majority of people are afraid of talking about new concepts. They have learned a social equation subliminally, a formula for how 'conversations should go'. Discussing self-generated novel abstractions, extrapolations, and relations are not a variable in that formula. Hmm, perhaps because such things are not typically discussed... people dont actually learn that they should engage is such things. I dub this meta-level skill, merphing. Every word that ever existed was fabricated by an individual. Or should i say 'discovered' by an individual because all concepts already exist without need of human thought?

MERPHING verb 1) to think about novel abstractions, extrapolations, and relations.

Broadly speaking I definitely agree with this. More specifically I can see this in math students who are afraid to try new things because they assume they won't understand it or they assume they won't get it correct and this also manifests in math students who won't pursue an idea they have because they assume it's 'silly', too dumb or simple to pursue or that someone already has. Which is why I'm never totally dismissive of an idea someone wants to explore with math like the one you had. Go for it, just try to be careful that you're framing it in a logical mathematically consistent manner.

Doing math you don't understand is one of the fastest ways to prove to yourself that your still an idiot. I think that is one of the reasons why most people I'v met that are into math are fairly humble.

The only bad idiot is one who stops asking questions and searching for answers. :)

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

The only bad idiot is one who stops asking questions and searching for answers. :)

It's bordering on travesty that the word "ignorant" carries such a negative connotation. There should be no great shame in ignorance; instead, the shame should fall on those who say they know but do not.

To clarify my post before this one: the only knowledge we have without thinking is the raw data provided to us by our senses - which itself is so overwhelming in size that we cannot store it, but stream it. Our ability to meaningfully retain this experience rests upon our proficiency in looking for patterns in this ephemeral stream and then remembering our summaries of them - thus, the single most important aspects of memory are vocabulary, as that is the compression method, and precision in one's language, such that the summaries are not inaccurate. Note that this is a purely personal application of vocabulary, and thus interpersonal compatibility is irrelevant; making up one's own words can be useful, and should not be discouraged (particularly in young children).

I mean, really think about it: what can you remember from a time before you had language?

(If SkyCore means his signature, I'm calling it out as bullshit.)

Even a priori knowledge must be thought; although it may not require experience to reason out, it still requires reasoning out - and it also requires language (mathematics uses a distinct language all its own, with "1+1" and "11" (decimal) and "11" (binary) all meaning different things; of course, it's possible to have personal definitions of these concepts without associating them with the conventional symbols).

There is no such thing as a concept which exists independent of thought.

Bump because I want to debate with SkyCore :p