How does that prove Hodge conjecture

>>16977038
Yeah gaussian primes are real; real annoying

No two snowflakes are the same so you can compare real numbers.

>>16977038
>mathematical space isn't real space
Yes? This isn't exactly a secret.

>>16978215
>No two snowflakes are the same
They all/mostly have six/twelve sides, thobeit

>>16978215
How do they know that though theyd have to get them all in the same room and even with computers...

>>16978215
Actually the chance for two snowflakes to be identical is 50%, we're just really unlucky.

>>16977038
How would a physical object show an abstract realm is real

>>16978676
>math is a literal realm he says
lol

>>16978678
If youre not a platonist then what do you mean by it being real

All the morons who claim that math and science are just one sided human inventions are sadly retarded.

They’re only right in the shallowest sense. Math and scientific processes have been transpiring for billions of years before life as we know it even evolved.

“b-but it’s not us - we’re not poking at it!”

That these retards can’t see the difference between applied math:science and ancient math:science says a lot.

Einstein saw it as music playing its tune regardless of us or our ability to listen in.

And yes, physics does take specific mathematical shapes. Snowflakes have six sides, twelve sides, etc.

>>16978683
>ancient
ambient*

>>16978681
Existence takes fundamental, unavoidable shapes. That’s math. A two cannot be a three. A three cannot be a two. A triangle cannot be a square. Math goes along with anything that exists. Quantification. Even in a state of absolute nothingness, a zero is still a one, a nothing is still a something.

If you think math isn’t real it’s because you’re so accustomed for reality you’ve effectively become blinded by it. You’re too used to it. Sort of like how modern day people pretentiously overcomplicate everything, even when science in essence is overwhelmingly simple. This is also something Einstein feared. If you cannot explain something simply enough then you don’t understand it well enough. Communication is key. Confusion is death. Liberals confused the left and now nobody knows what a woman is. And the pride and ego has been so thoroughly pumped that no one will listen to someone who is objectively correct about anything.

>>16978687
>she still isn't morphismly correct

>>16978687
Math is the description of observed distinction sure, the things exist and their interactions/distinctions are observable but what sense of "exist" are you using for math here

>>16978689
>>16978698
Jesus Christ you don’t belong on /sci/

>>16978698
If math/geometry didn’t exist then snowflakes wouldn’t have six sides. The six sided shape of a snowflake is a direct result of the geometry of water molecules and the laws of physics. At a microscopic level, liquid water is made up of molecules with one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. Because of their shape, these molecules naturally lock together at specific 60^ and 120^ angles to form a tight, hexagonal (six sided) lattice as they freeze.

>it's another episode of low-grade midwits repeating reification fallacies over and over

>>16977038
How do the atoms at the tip of one of the arms know there are five other arms to copy

>>16978717
the problem is that every time you try to substantiate what it means for math to exist, your example can be neatly filed under a more neutral and precise statement like "reality follows mathematically intelligible patterns". since you're not demonstrating anything more, your usage just dilutes the meaning of the word 'exists'. a pattern doesn't become pure math until you abstract it from the phenomenon that exhibits it, subtracting the very concreteness that underlies the intuitive notion of existence. if that abstraction still "exists" in the same sense as the original phenomenon, where does it exist? how does it imprint its mathematical essence on its concrete physical derivatives? going down this route is how you end up with platonic mysticism

i think the bottom line here is that you believe some of the stuff math covers has ontological essence, but you don't know how to articulate it besides applying the word 'exists' to mathematical structures and invokes all the wrong implications

>>16978750
>pretentious gobbledygook
lol

>what IS existence tho
Jesus Christ

>>16978687
>Existence takes fundamental, unavoidable shapes. That’s math.
What does existence mean and what is a shape? Philosophy requires more rigor than this. Try harder or at least read someone who has tried harder than you instead of embarrassing yourself.

> A two cannot be a three. A three cannot be a two.
A two is a three if the unit of measure changes mid-judgment. You need to be more precise.

>A triangle cannot be a square.
Just say they're forms of physical arrangement which lend themselves to certain 1d abstractions. Is this really that hard?

> Even in a state of absolute nothingness, a zero is still a one, a nothing is still a something.
This is literally gibberish. I understand that what you mean is that zero and nothing are still determinations, but, again, be precise.

>If you think math isn’t real it’s because you’re so accustomed for reality you’ve effectively become blinded by it
Actually, when people ask about the reality of Mathematics they are more precisely asking for immanence. Like, what definite relation does the formula for the circumference of a circle have with the circumference of a circle? Hegel has already pointed out the fundamental philosophical problem of Mathematics, where proofs are presented as essentially taking a random other thing and then combining syllogisms to get at an answer. It gets at correct answers since the system of logic created for Mathematics works but it does not explain anything in the sense that most people intuitively mean when they ask "why."

It's not like Mathematics is doomed, but it's telling that on the problem of the "reality" of Mathematics you either get vulgarity like your post, literal Platonism, a refusal to engage ("Mathematics just works different, you're a midwit") or agnostic shrugging. The problem will need to be solved at some point in history but the task is massive seeing just how much will need to be absorbed into any attempt to tackle the problem.

>>16978769
>A two is a three if the unit of measure changes mid-judgment
Gobbledygook. Stop dancing. A three-sided polygon can never become a four-sided polygon.

>>16978776
>Gobbledygook. Stop dancing. A three-sided polygon can never become a four-sided polygon.
You lack creativity. All points can be understood as the infinitesimal forms of a line, so all triangles are polygons at some point of measure. But your example was bad in the first place, we were talking about numbers and not shapes, you must establish a relation between the two first.

It's fine that you didn't grasp what I said but you seem to be driven by a pathological urge to argue about things that you do not even care about understanding so I'm going to terminate the conversation for your own good.

>>16978786
>so all triangles are polygons
I meant "so all triangles are four-sided polygons," sorry.

>>16978715
That's blasphemy, Jesus Christ was the original scientist.

>>16978687
>Existence takes fundamental, unavoidable shapes. That’s math
No, math is taking the observed shapes and translating them into your mathematical space which allows you to do arithmetic on them

>>16978759
>t. mentally ill retard

>>16978855
Nope. Quantification predates man. Sorry to have to tell you this.

>>16978786
>But your example was bad in the first place, we were talking about numbers and not shapes, you must establish a relation between the two first.
That you can’t see the relationship between numbers and shapes is fucking hilarious