> If you want a more concrete example, show that the sum […]
He won't. I keep running into people like this all the time. They are hellbent on the idea that anything they don't understand must be meaningless, useless, or the fault of others. If you get a reply at all, I suspect it will be something like "pi is just a meaningless approximation to a real physical concept" or "infinite series don't actually exist in real life, I'll sum the first 1000000 terms on a computer and that's all that exists".
Mathematicians who think infinity is real should be treated with the same disdain as Neptune worshiping astrologers.
The internet makes it easy for pedantic losers to have a loud opinion. Hell I have even run in to pedantic losers who have the time to create multiple new and fake accounts and use old sock puppets to create the illusion of an audience because these friendless, loveless losers literally have no one to talk to IRL.
> I keep running into people like this all the time.
Psychological attacks, amazing! I'm guessing you are one of those deeply insecure symbol twiddlers. Let me guess, as kid you were crap at everything, especially sports except symbol twiddling so you latched onto those praises your teacher gave you and as an adult that is the only source of your self-esteem. And you can't handle it when someone on the internet thinks abstract mathematicians are full of shit.
> Mathematicians who think infinity is real should be treated with the same disdain as Neptune worshiping astrologers.
Mathematicians will not say anything like "infinity is real" or "infinity is not real". We are careful creatures, and will ask what you mean by "infinity". In this subthread we've been discussing infinite series. What part of the definition of those do you have a problem with? (Prediction: you'll never answer this, but instead go on ranting with no ability to focus on the topic at hand. I can definitely see why math is hard for you, you have a severe problem with focus).
> The internet makes it easy for pedantic losers to have a loud opinion.
I can see that.
> Hell I have even run in to pedantic losers who have the time to create multiple new and fake accounts and use old sock puppets to create the illusion of an audience because these friendless, loveless losers literally have no one to talk to IRL.
That's pretty sad. It's also very sad that this is the conclusion you jump to when someone speaks out against your insane ravings in an entirely logical and coherent way.
> Psychological attacks, amazing!
It's a bit entertaining that you can go from what you wrote above (and what you write below) straight into accusing me of this.
> I'm guessing you are one of those deeply insecure symbol twiddlers.
I am indeed quite insecure. I'm working on managing that. If you by "symbol twiddler" mean mathematician, then yes – and quite proud of it too. You'll do well to get back on track to the topic at hand though, seeing as you're currently coming off a bit like the people one sometimes see yelling incoherent nonsense on subway trains.
> Let me guess, as kid you were crap at everything, especially sports except symbol twiddling so you latched onto those praises your teacher gave you and as an adult that is the only source of your self-esteem.
Not at all. While I was quite mediocre at sports (though far from crap), I did really well in most things. I was not a favorite of the teachers, because I had (and probably still have) a bit of problem with authority. Are you done derailing the discussion now? I'll remind you: we're discussing the usefulness of mathematics, not my childhood or athletic abilities.
> And you can't handle it when someone on the internet thinks abstract mathematicians are full of shit.
I can handle it just fine, primarily because what raving lunatics believe has no influence on the extreme actual power and usefulness of mathematics. The reason I care to have the discussion is to set the record straight for third parties' sake.
> I would not reply if not for the delicious irony the georoge cantor was a schizophrenic lunatic who died poor and homeless.
Do the mental problems and drug addiction of a brilliant musician detract from his or her music? Do you yell "madman" at a painting by van Gogh?
> Unlike you I welcome the death of mathematicians and mathematics as we know it
Even you, with the most pedestrian definition of what is "useful", must surely acknowledge that a lot of mathematics is immensely useful. Yet you wish for its death. You have nothing to replace it with. You sound like Trump and his non-existent healthcare "plans". You're hell-bent on destroying something simply because you cannot grasp it.
> No we are not. The post was about the value of notation and my thread was about the refutation of notation as useless and programming as a better alternative to it.
Yes, and in a sub-thread of the post you've made it clear that you doubt the usefulness of mathematics. So now we are having a sub-discussion about that. Yet you've still to contribute anything of value. On several occasions have I and others invited you to comment on very concrete mathematical constructions. You evade those invitations. I can only surmise that that is because you do not understand the questions you are being asked, or are unable to provide an alternative to the current standard mathematics. That standard mathematics is done in a somewhat formal language built around the very notation that this thread is about.
> Do the mental problems and drug addiction of a brilliant musician detract from his or her music? Do you yell "madman" at a painting by van Gogh?
Yes. Completely ignore the degenerates. There are many sober people who have made art and science. You should not allow mentally ill lunatics to define art, music, religion, maths or politics anymore than you will allow them to be your cab driver or spouse.
Clearly science is about sobriety and not schizophrenia. I guess mathematics was hijacked by schizophrenics, music and art by depressed losers. No wonder you are out of touch with reality, practicality and are defending symbols which you think have magical "powers" beyond mere convention.
You can also see this in physics with the string theory garbage, however unlike "pure" mathematics ... in physics people need to test experimentally.
> Yes, and in a sub-thread of the post you've made it clear that you doubt the usefulness of mathematics.
No, I said proofs were tautological and pointless and notation is useless. Formal mathematics is bullshit.
> On several occasions have I and others invited you to comment on very concrete mathematical constructions.
Your sock puppets ?
1. You were asking about fundamental theorem of calculus
This has a very geometric proof. Why would I have a problem with that ? I am all for geometry, visualization, simulation , testing ....
2. A number puzzle
I don't care for number puzzles. I will try to solve that number puzzle if you can write vietnamese jokes.
> Yes. Completely ignore the degenerates. There are many sober people who have made art and science. You should not allow mentally ill lunatics to define art, music, religion, maths or politics anymore than you will allow them to be your cab driver or spouse.
What a vile attitude.
> Clearly science is about sobriety and not schizophrenia.
Of course. No endeavour is about schizophrenia. That doesn't mean the contributions of sufferers of schizophrenia should be discarded. Evaluate the contributions on their own merits. Which is something that you can do with science and math and art.
> No wonder you are out of touch with reality, practicality and are defending symbols which you think have magical "powers" beyond mere convention.
I and others have repeatedly challenged you to reproduce "useful" math without these tools. You consistently avoid the topic.
> You can also see this in physics with the string theory garbage, however unlike "pure" mathematics ... in physics people need to test experimentally.
That is because physics is about deducing facts about the natural word. Mathematics is about deducing truths within a logical framework, given certain assumptions. If the assumptions are reasonable, the things math deduce can very often be extremely useful in describing said natural world. You have clearly not understood this.
Said differently: given a mathematical model for the physical world, mathematics can predict its behavior. This is, needless to say, extremely powerful. It is the job of physicists to determine whether the underlying model is a good one.
> No, I said proofs were tautological and pointless and notation is useless. Formal mathematics is bullshit.
And I will have to repeat myself then: Is calculus useless? If you say yes, you're clearly deranged, as physics and much of engineering die with it. If you say no, then I challenge you to construct a useful and consistent version of calculus without formal mathematics. Come on now! Enough with the ad hominems, get cracking! Put your money where your big mouth is.
> Your sock puppets ?
No.
> 1. You were asking about fundamental theorem of calculus. This has a very geometric proof. Why would I have a problem with that ?
Care to give that proof? Or point me to it? I bet you that it will either turn out to be correct and I can show you how it uses formal mathematics, or it will turn out to be incorrect or not a proof at all.
> 2. A number puzzle
What the hell are you on about? What's the number puzzle you're talking about? The series mentioned? It's not at all a "number puzzle" – it's a direct consequence of (among other things) Fourier analysis. Ask any "real life" signal processing engineer whether Fourier analysis is "real" or "just a number puzzle".
Flamewar like this will get you banned on HN. Please don't post anything like this again. Ditto for your comments upthread a la "What are you on about?" and "Are you insane?" That style of commenting is not allowed here.
Instead, if someone is particularly wrong on the internet, just step away. If another commenter is breaking the site guidelines, flag the comment and don't feed it by replying. What we want on this site is curious conversation, not arguments to the finish.
Clearly you are too much of a pedant to do anything useful in life, so why don't you build a time machine and interrupt your birthing process ? It should be easy ... you can build it using calculus.
Science is about modelling the real world. Mathematics is about modelling. Programming is "interactive" modelling. Its all about modelling accurately.
Clearly you are also too much of a bigot to understand that models are just models and unreadable and undecipherable models are useless and full of shit, especially those built by schizophrenics or priests.
> If you say no, then I challenge you to construct a useful and consistent version of calculus without formal mathematics.
That was how it was constructed in the first place genius. Both calculus and fourier were built for practical purposes before formalist clowns were even alive probably. So why don't you go read the originals.
Formal calculus is beyond useless, its unreadable.
He won't. I keep running into people like this all the time. They are hellbent on the idea that anything they don't understand must be meaningless, useless, or the fault of others. If you get a reply at all, I suspect it will be something like "pi is just a meaningless approximation to a real physical concept" or "infinite series don't actually exist in real life, I'll sum the first 1000000 terms on a computer and that's all that exists".