Is it true that in the past they did most advanced maths using geometry instead of current gay derivatives or integrals? Can we go back? I'd like if we started doing it again, those early maths had more soul
>>16937220>before [thing] was invented, people did stuff without [thing].Yes. But [thing] was invented to allow us to do stuff that we couldn't do before. Or at least do it more efficiently.
>>16937220one may find https://polus-arcticus.github.io/mmp/ satisfying it acts as a rosetta stone between geometer and the analyst, and also champions a perennial philosophy, that core of mathematics so cherish'd by the ancients be rescued from the nihilism the post englightenment mathematicans diluted the axiom on and began to pretend to grasp the infiniteit repins the box arithmetic, as sort of generalization of polynomials that are directly encodable on a computer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xoF2SRp194still a work in progress but the meat is there and the box math, the important part for operations, is well defined by Wildburger
>>16937310This is literally nothing. It does not belong here at all.
>>16937323shillometer on high already. The box math is legit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im7nYgvZ9Q0its only error is it had the wrong ontologoical foundation, you cant have an empty set for the inverse reason you cant have an infinite set. MMP repairs that with the soul of ancient maths
If this shit was legit it would be in a [math]\mathcal{JOURNAL}[/math].
>>16937333arn't journals epstein gang coded with elsevier jstor maxwell senior conde nast wtf.jpg ?
>>16937220Just do what you like fag. Geometry is still the ground work. Derivative is tangent and integral is area under curve. One they found the linguistic rules they ran with it. If you want geometric representation you can always find or make some. The world will be more asethetically pleasing to the linguistically challenged.
>>16937220>Can we go back?Im so sorry...but you missed the boat. I couldnt imagine what it feels like for the most important moment of your life to have happened before you were even born.Now it can only be done in exotic locations by extrodinary people...its just not tenable in modernity.
Bro, I dunno if you know this, but up till the 19th century more or less, Euclidean geometry was something that literally every single schoolboy and schoolgirl from Russia to Saint-Domingue (present-day Haïti) had to learn. Instead of spending a fuckton of lessons learning about da Holohoax and why you gotta send all your money to Israel, and also gay shit like Common Core Math, they just learned synthetic geometry, so that meant that analytic geometry, rather than synthetic geometry, was was people from the 17th century onwards learned at university.But even then, up until the late Victorian era, it was still common for engineering textbooks to explain how to draw the involute gear profile (which is nowadays just a click away on CAD programs like Siemens NX and FreeCAD) using methods from synthetic geometry. I would say that actually what killed synthetic geometry was its lack of compatibility with set theory/analysis-based methods preferred by the Bourbaki school.
>>16937609>from Russia to Saint-Domingue>every single schoolboy and schoolgirl>>16937609>it can only be done in exotic locations by extrodinary peopleTold you y'all.
>>16937221Drinking bland nutriment paste may be more efficient than dining at a fine restaurant. But man does not live on nutriment paste alone.
>>16937221>stuff that we couldn't do before. Yes, with the new tools.>Or at least do it more efficientlyFor a few, that willfully try to crack some new code, AI and general cultural maturity points towards a generation thats kind of aloof, trying to line it up with the "250 financial year lifespan" of Impirial banks over time with perceivable Psychological manifestations. I just dont hang out in the the US very often to get an in personal data set.
>>16937529Booba
>>16938331Half of the infinite motorboat in Turkey, the other half came from India I believe (many faced in similar fashion), cant remember where.>>16937220>those early maths had more soulIf you want to "solve" something approach old and simple shit "outside the plane (into a box, then into a hyper-spaces?)." Thats what they were doing, do that too. Just messing around can reveal certain things.
>>16938331This solves the cleavage by your boobie analogy
