> 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.
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".