What is the use case of masturbatory "logic" "philosophy" "set theory" "field theory" gobbledygook like infinite sets containing sets of themselves and adding up numbers to infinity and all kinds of other noncery that doesn't actually do anything in the real world? Just sounds like an excuse for people to take grant money without doing real work to me.
>>16886034optimization of algorithms like pathfinding, sorting and a plethora of similar crap
>>16886038>optimization of algorithms like pathfindingmay i see them?seriously i could use that
>>16886045Wym? It's all well known public stuffhttps://ai.stanford.edu/~nilsson/OnlinePubs-Nils/PublishedPapers/astar.pdfhttps://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?doi=b0f0432ba69e4d730b93a75e3d19c8e9d811efac
>>16886056i'm already using a*what have you done for me lately?
>>16886034>be OP>complains about "useless" set theory and logic>posts this via a global network of Turing Machines (logic)>data routed through SQL databases (set theory)>signal error-corrected by finite fields (field theory)>streaming hentai via Fourier transforms (infinite series)Imagine being this filtered. You're literally using the "gobbledygook" to whine about it.Turing didn't care about "real work" when he was solving logic puzzles, he just accidentally invented the CPU. Galois died in a duel at 20 writing "useless" algebra that now runs 5G and crypto. Boole did true/false tables 80 years before anyone realized they describe electrical circuits.The "scam" is the R&D that keeps civilization running while you struggle with long division. The math isn't useless, you're just a midwit incapable of abstraction. Enjoy your burger flipping.
>>16886061nah it all seems like bullshit nowtell me what the fuck spending millions of dollars and manhours arguing about "can an infinite set contain an infinite set that is itself" is going to accomplish
>>16886064>be you>think "sets containing themselves" is just philosophy>mfw it’s literally the difference between a working PC and a Blue Screen of DeathListen closely, midwit. The "set containing itself" isn't a poem, it’s a stack overflow.When mathematicians "argue" about this, they are defining TYPE THEORY. Without solving Russell’s Paradox, you cannot build a compiler that distinguishes between data and the code acting on that data.If we didn't spend those millions:1. The Halting Problem: You couldn't prove if a program will actually finish or just freeze forever in an infinite loop.2. Security: Every secure system (banking, military, crypto) relies on Formal Verification to prove the code can't logically eat itself.You're whining about the safety inspection on the rollercoaster you're riding. We pay these nerds to ensure logic doesn't collapse so your bank balance doesn't become `NaN`.Cope harder.
It helps us so we're not going too off of the rails with what we're researching. Philosophy, logic, etc. are all like "the study of a study" rather than a study in itself. If what's being said in philosophy can't be demonstrated in any way, then it's a bad philosophy. But not everything can be fully proven, so it stays in the more abstract sphere rather than being treated as a matter of science. Mathematics itself has had problems when it isn't lined up properly with science, which is how you get problems like infinite sets.
>>16886065This is a CS nerd answer, he wants a real answer. >Le computer needs itis not a real answer. The Halting problem has large philosophical implications. How do we know if our universe will go on forever or complete? We don't. A lot of math and logic is assuming shit we don't actually know for sure in order to make the experiments work. It's like zero to the power of zero. It's indeterminate, but it can be assumed as being equal to one in certain cases because we couldn't properly do the math if we tried to treat it as incomplete.
>>16886065nah cope harder grant suckeryou're wasting money on stupid shit to masturbateit's not real math, you just stroke your egos thinking you're doing something important>1. The Halting Problem: You couldn't prove if a program will actually finish or just freeze forever in an infinite loop.BULL fucking shit. you just look at the program.>while (1) {}OH SHIT WILL MY PROGRAM FINISH OR NOT??? I NEED A 10 MILLION DOLLAR GRANT TO FIND OUTlying shit
>>16886034philosophy is for legit retards, niche is the king of retards btw>but whyread his biography, it's suicidal tier
>>16886070>How do we know if our universe will go on forever or complete? We don'tAnd it's all fucking masturbation shit>dude if we just rub our number cocks together and squiggle [infinity,} equals dicks up our asses we can prove the universeyou aren't solving any real problems, it's FAKE PHILOSOPHICAL bullshit that doesn't affect anything in the real world
>>16886061> streaming hentai via Fourier transforms (infinite series)FFT is finite though.>>16886064> tell me what the fuck spending millions of dollars and manhours arguing about "can an infinite set contain an infinite set that is itself" is going to accomplishNothing, because it's a already a solved problem. Also, set theory is largely obsolete in favor of type theory.
>>16886034Well, if you jerked off most of the day then fell asleep, it counts as the entire day.
>>16886034>Just sounds like an excuse for people to take grant money without doing real work to me.What Timmy gon do about it? HAHAHAHA
>>16886034Many things that did nothing in the real world turned out to do things in the real world millenia later.
>>16886034>masturbatoryquick guys, what was the last formula you masturbated to?
>>16886064>tell me what it's going to accomplishhe just fucking did you stupid faggot, he gave several examples of where math led to technological progress you're now using to shit on mathematicsyou're so fucking retarded lmao
>>16887008Ever heard of Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica? Eastern Front trenches can get lonely
>>16886034>use caseyou wouldn't understand, it would go over your head so it's better and safer for you to just think it's useless nonsense.
>>16887231>t. failed bullshit artist who wouldn't get a grant
