It's a STEMfag pretends to comprehend all of philosophy chapter

>being good at math is not intelligence
You are either a shitposter or way too dumb.

>I claim that Aristotle was refuted by Newton even though I haven't read him

> literal computers are better at math than humans
literal elementary school take. Learn what a theorem is user.

I've always looked at math as a kind of language in and of itself: its grammar is one of signs, symbols, and numbers: its copulas are your plus sign, your minus sign: the computations done with it resemble those used to construct a sentence properly.

What I mean with all of this rambling and dithering is that I place just as much importance in math as I do in any language. Though it may use a different part of the brain, yet it resembles so distinctly the process of linguistics that I'm apt to compare the two.

Hum, very profound

> all of this rambling and dithering

You typed a single sentence, how is that "rambling and dithering" you DFW wannabe faggot? kys

Math is not stricly linguistic, there has been neurological work on it. There are structural similarities between the brains and humans and other species like apes and bird, and some part seem to be used for quantitative intuition in several species. So for instance some birds intuitively understand than three gains in front of them are a lesser quantity than five grains, even though they don't have a concept of number. Geometric intuition are also inherently non-verbal.

Maths is a attempt at putting a certain general type of intuitions into language that highlight their general character. It's an unending interplay of nonvebral intuition and language.

lmao brainlet who never studied mathematics beyond algebra detected. what a sad cope post!

posting itt to laugh at this post

leave him alone, bully

cringe

kek, big brained post

computers can do algebra too retards. and logic. and calculus. you’re not special.

>prospect of infinite infinities
Guenon already solved this nonissue. No one listened

>instead of being embarrassed by showing his absolute ignorance mathematics he's doubling down
just kek

nothing I’ve said so far is false

In that case, when will you collect your $1 million for making a computer prove the Riemann Hypothesis, genius?

you say that like a STEMfag will

It's false in the sense that you claim to understand what mathematics is yet your view of mathematics is equivalent to a 1st graders view of literature, i.e. that it's just a bunch of letters put together and nothing more.
Everyone here is laughing at you for how stubbornly ignorant you are.

Most major unsolved problems in mathematics have been solved by professional mathematicians. By extension, it seems very likely that RH will be solved by a mathematician, if solved at all.

Computers just exert brute force, they can't create new concepts. That's the duty of talented matemathicians. However the average stemfag is not that talented nor invent new concepts, they just write differential equations, put them into some software and it gives them answers. Computer acts to them as a blackbox deity and they fill magazines with tons a tons of this trash. Yet they pretend to have already solved philosophy and everything knowable.

Source: I'm a stemfag

and those are people who took the time to delve into writing for journals and reading literature on the subject, people more intelligent than an average autism spectrum stemfag

>and those are people who took the time to delve into writing for journals and reading literature on the subject
That's what being a mathematician means you fucking retard. Jesus Christ summer Yea Forums blows.

no, that's what philosopher means, hence doctors of philosophy

My good friend is a physicist and we discuss philosophy and shit all the time. Most philosophy majors are completely inapproachable, and just scoffs at you if you mention you have read something. All english majors i've met are cookie cutters and uninterested in any literature from the canon.

Everything is literature

moron

you're the one dancing around semantics to justify your cute little aspy major

Can a computer prove a major theorem without humans guiding it all the way through and doing 80% of the real work for it?
A friend of mine did an intership with the leader of the team who reproved Feit-Thomson using automated proof assistant. She said it was a nightmare, computers are fucking dumb, you have to babysit them every step of the way, and a subproof that would take 3 step for an average student is dozen of steps for the computer.

TL;DR: You don't know what you're talking about.

Now this is low-quality bait, we're talking untritional value of KFC level of bait.

And I said 80% but on retrospect it's more like 95 if not 99%.

Not sure if you think computers are magic or you think mathematics is purely about computation.

Projecting insecure faggot
Fpbp

Attached: 1556983214761.gif (500x333, 150K)

this

tfw I'm doing a psychology doctorate (most respected STEM degree) and am considering a career in academia, but know that a philosophy undergraduate has far more insight into the human condition than I do