If iq is real then answer me this simple question

[mogger123]

Math is not making up definitions. Math is like the literal opposite of that you have to prove it all.

proof following from axioms aka definitions

 

[LampPostPrime]

proof following from axioms aka definitions

Well yea thats every field tho. If you Don't assume a few things then you literally can't construct anything at all

 

[LampPostPrime]

The only thing more fundamental than math is philosophy

 

[alpha_provider]

Math is not making up definitions. Math is like the literal opposite of that you have to prove it all.

what's the difference between religious dogmas and mathematical axioms in regards to their genesis and acceptance as valid statements? What's the core source of their legitimacy as we perceive it?

---

to the OP, Einstein for peak input, Von Neumann for general superiority. Newton is worth mentioning here too, his legacy lies between Einstein's and Von Neumann's. Fucking lol at trolling with Goethe and Grothendieck, you can do better.

 

[LampPostPrime]

what's the difference between religious dogmas and mathematical axioms in regards to their genesis and acceptance as valid statements? What's the core source of their legitimacy as we perceive it?

---

to the OP, Einstein for peak input, Von Neumann for general superiority. Newton is worth mentioning here too, his legacy lies between Einstein's and Von Neumann's. Fucking lol at trolling with Goethe and Grothendieck, you can do better.

Nigga religious dogma isnt self evident like 2+2 = 4 lmfao. Fuckin obviously

 

[alpha_provider]

Nigga religious dogma isnt self evident like 2+2 = 4 lmfao. Fuckin obviously

why is 2+2 self evident? did you realize that before or after getting it forced into your brain in school?

in the past, religious dogmas were self evident in the same exact sense as 2+2=4 is to modern people. "2" is an attribution to a certain quantity of objects in the same sense as "holy" was being attributed to saints or whatever in the middle ages. this (science, math) is just its successor, the currently widely accepted construction of beliefs we orientate ourselves

 

[LampPostPrime]

why is 2+2 self evident? did you realize that before or after getting it forced into your brain in school?

in the past, religious dogmas were self evident in the same exact sense as 2+2=4 is to modern people. "2" is an attribution to a certain quantity of objects in the same sense as "holy" was being attributed to saints or whatever in the middle ages. this (science, math) is just its successor, the currently widely accepted construction of beliefs we orientate ourselves

You're being incredibly dishonest. "Holy" is subjective emotion. Quantity by definition does not change wtf lmao

 

[LampPostPrime]

Science and Math are public and verifiable and you can follow the logical chain of consequences unlike religion. How the fuck can you equate them .

 

[alpha_provider]

missing the entire point, like everyone else i confront with this idea (which is already widely accepted by actual intellectuals and scientists)

it must suck to have an intellectual cap and not realize your level of reasoning is identical to those of the guys who were burning witches because ....

simply put, a 1500 AD version of you would be shouting "burn the witch" just because she was a redhead and because someone else shouted it too

equate

reading comprehension skills of a literal retard, despite me stressing it's not equating whenever i can. do you even know what the word iteration means, lmao

 

[mogger123]

what's the difference between religious dogmas and mathematical axioms in regards to their genesis and acceptance as valid statements? What's the core source of their legitimacy as we perceive it?

---

to the OP, Einstein for peak input, Von Neumann for general superiority. Newton is worth mentioning here too, his legacy lies between Einstein's and Von Neumann's. Fucking lol at trolling with Goethe and Grothendieck, you can do better.

Grothendieck is widely considered the greatest mathematician of the 20th century (which included Einstein + von Neumann, as you know). His contributions to pure algebra are insanely abstract and more difficult to comprehend than GR or anything VN came up with. Dismissing him is ignorant.

Same goes for Goethe with the sheer breadth of his talent.

 

[alpha_provider]

Grothendieck is widely considered the greatest mathematician of the 20th century (which included Einstein + von Neumann, as you know). His contributions to pure algebra are insanely abstract and more difficult to comprehend than GR or anything VN came up with. Dismissing him is ignorant.

Same goes for Goethe with the sheer breadth of his talent.

They wouldnt even get on this forum's "highest iq members" lists

Literal useless autists

 

[mogger123]

They wouldnt even get on this forum's "highest iq members" lists

Literal useless autists

stick to law, tbh

 

[alpha_provider]

stick to law, tbh

ok, I'll leave pointless mental masturbation over abstractions of abstractions that's only useful for coping with inceldom and neurodevelopmental problems to you "geniuses"

 

[mogger123]

ok, I'll leave pointless mental masturbation over abstractions of abstractions that's only useful for coping with inceldom and neurodevelopmental problems to you "geniuses"

thanks

 

[DelonLover1999]

in pure “computationa power,” von neumann.

in sheer creative genius and self-reliance, groethendick.

cba to rate einstein and goethe.

 

[Deleted member 40986]

Who is smarter; Von Neumann, Einstein, Grothendieck or Goethe?

neumann teramogs