Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Real Time Decisions

  1. Mar 21, 2004 #1
    We are in "Real Time Decisions", where the moral of few can be the real time mass destruction of countries.

    First of all I am a living creature then a human being then a Jew.

    My entire mother's family was slotted by the Nazis in their death camps that they built, by using their skillful engineering abilities, based on Math language that educates people to quantify everything.

    On the Nazi depth camps, people where quantified, by writing numbers on their hands, before they where slotted by the Nazis, that developed a very efficient industry of death.

    Let us not forget any modern atomic, chemical or biological weapons, which now in our hands and the two things that prevent from us to use it are fear of death and the sanity of the people who have these weapons.

    The separation between humanity and intellectual mathematical skills that gave us a big technological leap in the last 500 years brought us to these dangerous times.

    Only education can maybe help us to close this dangerous gap between morality and technological skills.

    In my opinion one of the things that have to be done is to put in the first place the structural complexity of each explored element.

    I think that this kind of educational point of view can help us to develop a non-trivial approach about complex systems that cherish their unique value, and don't give us ways to reduce humanity to quantity, as the Nazis did to my entire mother's family, before they murdered them.

    This kind of approach must be the heart of Math language, because Math language is too powerful to be left without being aware to the gentleness of fine and unique complexity within each of us.

    For more details please read this paper:

    Last edited: Mar 21, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 21, 2004 #2
    Thats right, math is inherently evil, if it wasn't for that number crunching attitude the nazis wouldn't have hurt anyone...wanna buy some vacation land in pacoima?

    Hate to break it to you, but what the nazis did has nothing to do with "math languauge." It had a hell of a lot more to do wwith nationalism, one of the most dangerous socio-psychological phenomenon in history. As good old Friedrich nietzsche pointed out, nationalism should and must be avoided or else it will lead to the most terrifying and bloody wars the world has ever seen, i.e WWI-II. It had absolutely nothing to do with "math languauge".

    That aside, wouldn't this be better suited to the philosophy section, not theory development?
  4. Mar 21, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Here is the proof of this:
    According to the Lebesgue measure almost all real numbers in any closed intervall are satanic, i.e. contains the sequence 666 somewhere in its decimal expansion. Hence math is evil. Q.E.D.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2004
  5. Mar 21, 2004 #4
    You missed the point, there is no an objective thing like Math without people who teach and learn it.

    I am talking about the ability of people to use Math language as an educational tool that teaching people to quantify everything, without taking care about the inner complexity of the quantified elements.
  6. Mar 21, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yet, math deals with lots of things that aren't quantities, like sets, topologies, graphs, fields, polynomials, ...
  7. Mar 21, 2004 #6
    I've never been taught to quantify anything that isn't a number. For anyone with anything resembling a brain what you're describing is at best laughable, meaning no one with any intellect would fall into that error of quantifying things that aren't numbers.
  8. Mar 22, 2004 #7
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2004
  9. Mar 22, 2004 #8

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Of course the non-moralistic view of mathematics never gave us anything good either. The engineers who designed dialysis machines, ambulances, the contradictorily good but evil weapons that allowed us tio defeat the Nazis, the architects and civil engineers who design schools and hospitals... they must have been using a different maths to the Nazis, good maths. Though one wonders what maths the people who designed the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki used.
  10. Mar 22, 2004 #9
    Kain had killed Abel long before he knew how to do 1 + 1. Evil is an inherent characteristic of men, not mathematics or science. Mathematics per se is not evil, it is men that decides whether to put it to good use or not. The Nazis would have slaughtered my family whether they knew math or not.
  11. Mar 22, 2004 #10
    And how do you measure all these things?
  12. Mar 22, 2004 #11

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    We do not wish to measure them. We have no need to measure them. Mathematics is not just about "measuring" things, it is far richer than that. Why do you wish to assign arbitrary "measured" values (moral or otherwise) to abstract things? For that matter define "measure". We know, you hate defining things, sorry. Are you one of those people who thinks it mathematically valid to mark films out of 10? I remember someone asking me once if when trying to a stats project it was ok to assign a number to hair colour, and then average the number to get the average hair colour... the mind boggles. (And he didn't mean assign the colour to its wavelength before anyone asks.)

    We can assign quantities to objects such as cardinalities of fields, of the generating set for the topology, orders to groups (and their elements), degree and numbers of (real) roots of a polynomial (defined over R)... Is any of that what you mean?
  13. Mar 22, 2004 #12
    There are a lot of reasons internal and external why people hurt each other.

    One of the things is an educational process that exchanges the simple with the trivial.

    The standard Natural numbers are trivial elements because standard Math language, which is a powerful educational tool, don't research the inner complexity of the structural information that standing in the basis of the Natural numbers.

    This trivial point of view on the complexity of real life phenomena, help to create more non-moralistic people by teaching them to look on things only from a technical point of view where purpose and morality are automatically cut out.

    Vagueness is taught to be a problem that we have to eliminate by more rigorous definitions, soft borders and uncertain things must be clarified in any price, including the destruction of the explored things.

    Because Math language became the most powerful way of thinking of mankind, we must do the best we can to develop it as a language which its inner properties supports and develop a non-trivial point of view on the real world.

    If we don't do that it will not happened, and the combination of technical power and trivial way of thinking, can put an end to the existing of mankind.
  14. Mar 22, 2004 #13
    Arbitrary things are part of real life, redundancy and uncertainty too.

    We don't have to fight against them but to use them in creative ways, which are based on open heart and mind.

    Abstract models can easily become trivial if they escape from real life complexity.

    And the most important thing is that mathematicians do not include their cognition’s abilities to create Math as a legal part of Math development.

    For example:



    If you speack about definitions then please define "definition".
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2004
  15. Mar 22, 2004 #14

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    look it up in a dictionary, or are you going to pull the redutcio ad absurdum on defining things? A slightly pointless philosophical debate.

    I know what the natural numbers are, what they do, as most people do. You probably ought to look up meta-mathemaitcs or read a book on logic theory; the way you make these pronouncements implies that you actaully know what you're talking about. When did you become an expert on every single bit of mathematics that has ever been written?

    In another thread you demanded that things be well defined too by citing some other allegedly over-looked person.
  16. Mar 22, 2004 #15
    I am not an expert in anything, thanks god.

    Experts cut real life in an artificial and trivial way that does not concern the gentle incomes that can change the all pictures of their expertise.

    Let us talk about the inner information structure of the natural numbers:


    Please prove by your rigorous definitions that my information structures are not legal mathematical elements.
  17. Mar 22, 2004 #16

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I don't think you understand the objections to your lack of definition.

    Take the term 'uncertainty' you use in these tree diagrams. Now, I don't need you to define the meaning of the *word* uncertainty, nor at the moment do I care about why you're using the term in this context (ie what analogy you're using with, say, the uncertainty of Heisenberg, more of him later). What I want is for you to offer a definition which allows someone else to say, ah! this tree diagram has a "degree of uncertainty", that's all. Perhaps it is something to do with the shape of the tree, or the pattern in the leaves. The thing is no one knows what you mean.

    Take Heisenberg. We have his uncertainty principle. Just saying that doesn't tell us anything. It is a statement involving the ratios of certain integrals, that we can use to explain some phenomenon that has a whiff of "uncertianty" (of simultaneously evaluating integrals) about it.

    The pdf you attach is not rigorous anything - it is just a picture. I don't know what you are trying to say with it.

    Here's another example

    [tex]\oplus X_i \to \oplus X_i \to holim(X_i) \to X_i[1][/tex]

    where the first map is 1-shift.

    There you go! that's what I study, so now do you understand my mathematics?
  18. Mar 22, 2004 #17
    Please define "rigorous".
  19. Mar 22, 2004 #18

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Ok, you don't like that? How about, the pdf doesn't inform me of anything? Tell me what you're using that diagram for? What you want to do with it? It's just a picture, it no more illuminates a mathematical idea than Frans Hals's Laughing Cavalier if you don't tell me what it is! I know it's a picture of some structural property of something. But? And? So? What next? Am I supposed to guess?

    Is it a diagram showing all the trees with 1,2,3, and 4 levels for whatever set of rules you have for deeming a tree 'valid'? I think it is but it is not remotely self explanatory, nor did you offer any explanation of it in the post where you gave the link.

    Now, are you going to justify why the distinuished elements in each set, the blue ones, have the label "the common natural numbers"?

    And in what sense these form the "proper natural numbers" of your theory? perhaps by explaining what you mean by complementary.

    You don't explain what you write, Organic, it is not that it is necessarily wrong. We often cannot even decipher what you write.
  20. Mar 22, 2004 #19

    A lot of interesting things in Math cannot be reduced to rigorous definitions, for example:

    Please write rigorous definitions to find in one step any prime number.

    At this stage my trees has an algorithm that define them.

    Those trees shows the transitions between symmetry degrees.

    For example please look at this example and if you understand it try to translate it to your language:


    Please concentrate on the piano-model.

    More details you can find here:

    Last edited: Mar 22, 2004
  21. Mar 22, 2004 #20

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    A rigorous definition to FIND a prime number?

    Does p is prime iff whenever p|ab implies either p|a or p|b, and p is not a unit, not count? That is a perfectly rigorous definition of a prime element in N.

    I'm at a loss as to how a definition FINDS anything though.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook