>>16551019
“Mathematicians” isn’t a hivemind. Generally, the more applied a field is, the more mangled the rigor is. The rigor hierarchy is
>set theory, topology and category theory autists
>pure algebra autists
>cross-disciplinary pure math (analysis, algebraic topology, algebraic geometry)
>differential geometry and Lie theory
>*massive power gap*
>high energy theorists
>*massive power gap*
>condensed matter and plasma theorists
>*massive power gap*
>every other physicist
>*power gap abyss*
>enginiggers

>>16551031
What a retarded list

>>16551048
post a better one then

>>16551031
The first problem with your theory is that you're missing the first 2 rungs
>philosophers
>logicians
The second problem is philosophers have the most mangled rigor there is.

>>16551735
This thread is about mathematics, pseud. Physicists and engineers use mathematics. Philosophers and logicians don’t.
>philosophers have the most mangled rigor
*modern philosophers
we call then philosophers and not sophists precisely because the Holy Trio of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle spent their entire lives creating a rigorous framework including what we now call logic.

>>16552014
>This thread is about mathematics, pseud
The claim was
>Generally, the more applied a field is, the more mangled the rigor is
Math is applied logic and logic is applied philosophy.

>>16552332
>math is applied logic
>logic is applied philosophy
this shit again… Let’s go through the rigamarole
>logic is applied philosophy
No, logic is one of the three backbones of philosophy. The other two being pathos and ethos. Philosophy is about debating. What the debate is about is irrelevant. Could be the nature of God or whether trans poc women of color are a metaphysical category. Philosophy originally emerged in Ancient Greece because lawyers were banned and citizens had to make their case using their own arguments.
>math is applied logic
Applied to set theory. Every mathematician will tell you that they don’t know how to define a set. It’s something that doesn’t exist in logic and can’t be defined via logic. So the exact same argument as above.

>>16552396
You confused logos as a component of rhetoric with logic as a discipline. So moving right along.

>Every mathematician will tell you that they don’t know how to define a set. It’s something that doesn’t exist in logic and can’t be defined via logic.
Predicates in predicate logic are homologous with sets.

So it sounds like every mathematician is a fucking idiot.

>>16552839
>You confused logos as a component of rhetoric with logic as a discipline
the difference being?
>Predicates in predicate logic are homologous with sets.
What's the power set of a predicate?

>>16552920
>What's the power set of a predicate?
f(x)

>>16553041
dafuq is that supposed to mean?

>>16551031
>engineer at the bottom of the list
So either your list is most to least retarded rigor, or you don't understand engineering.
>thinks rules are more rigorous than actual function

>>16553053
>engineer saying complete nonsense to prove my point
thank you, my guy

>>16552920
>What's the power set of a predicate?
Collection of all predicates which imply that predicate

>>16553105
that’s not what a power set is. Take the set {A, B}. Its power set is {empty, {A}, {B}, {A,B}}. So nothing, A, B and (A and B) all imply (A and B)? A and B could be completely unrelated. Unicorn and Zimbabwe. Unicorn implies Zimbabwe?

>>16552332
>logic is applied philosophy.
Lol

>>16553580
NTA but the set {A, B} corresponds to the predicate A or B, not A and B. And the empty set corresponds to a predicate that is never satisfied.

>>16553806
Ah, so OR is the union and AND is the intersection. Makes sense desu.

File: Fields_of_Purity_Full.png (83 KB, 760x408)

83 KB PNG

>>16552396
>No, logic is one of the three backbones of philosophy. The other two being pathos and ethos. Philosophy is about debating.
That's like saying math is about pressing buttons on a calculator.
The whole Ethos/Pathos/Logos is just Aristoles' take on 3 modes of persuasions he thinks there is; it's got absolutely nothing to do with the fundmentals of philosophy just like a brand of calculators has got nothing to do with fundementals of mathematics.
Logics is applied philosophy, specifically a branch of epistemology. Since this branch of is at the root of modern science, the non-initiated thinks that is all there is.
Pro-tip: it aren't all there is. The other ones would be disregarded as /x/ on this board but they are nonetheless part of the catalogue.

>had a thought?
>that was philosophy right there, you were totally just philosophizing
Wow, what a great and eloquent use of language. Thinking about how the corn nuts in my shit scratched by asshole just right is really just a natural part of philosophy.
Pro-tip: you only claim the things you think are important without actually understanding any of those things yourself