• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 00:55
CEST 06:55
KST 13:55
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon8[ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent10Maestros of the Game: Week 1/Play-in Preview12[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt2: Take-Off7[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt1: Runway13
Community News
SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia5Weekly Cups (Sept 1-7): MaxPax rebounds & Clem saga continues23LiuLi Cup - September 2025 Tournaments3Weekly Cups (August 25-31): Clem's Last Straw?39Weekly Cups (Aug 18-24): herO dethrones MaxPax6
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy What happened to Singapore/Brazil servers? SC4ALL: A North American StarCraft LAN Classic Games #3: Rogue vs Serral at BlizzCon
Tourneys
SC4ALL $6,000 Open LAN in Philadelphia RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series LANified! 37: Groundswell, BYOC LAN, Nov 28-30 2025 LiuLi Cup - September 2025 Tournaments Maestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 490 Masters of Midnight Mutation # 489 Bannable Offense Mutation # 488 What Goes Around Mutation # 487 Think Fast
Brood War
General
ASL20 General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ alas... i aint gon' lie to u bruh... BW General Discussion [ASL20] Ro16 Preview Pt1: Ascent
Tourneys
[ASL20] Ro16 Group B Small VOD Thread 2.0 [ASL20] Ro16 Group A [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Borderlands 3 Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread The PlayStation 5 General RTS Discussion Thread Iron Harvest: 1920+
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI UK Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread High temperatures on bridge(s)
TL Community
BarCraft in Tokyo Japan for ASL Season5 Final The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Personality of a Spender…
TrAiDoS
A very expensive lesson on ma…
Garnet
hello world
radishsoup
Lemme tell you a thing o…
JoinTheRain
RTS Design in Hypercoven
a11
Evil Gacha Games and the…
ffswowsucks
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1098 users

Math+Physics = Truth?

Blogs > UGC4
Post a Reply
1 2 Next All
UGC4
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Peru532 Posts
December 01 2009 13:51 GMT
#1
Hi everyone, before you read on let me warn you, this will probably be a boring blog to some of you because it is math related. i dislike math myself, even though i know how useful it can be. i just wanna discuss a couple of aspects of it with the smart TL community that cares enough to read.

Anyway. I remember having a discussion in a class regarding the topic of TRUTH. The discussion then derailed into the subjects of Mathematics + Physics and their proximity to perfection or truth, because most students argued that these sciences could prove everything. I understood their argument completely for obvious reasons, but then i asked the following:

- if math/physics is such accurate systems, why do they have such innate flaws? for example, x / 0 is undefined, etc.
- why would math/physics be any more special or accurate when they are nothing but a human construct? for example, multiplication comes before summation, but says who? obviously it works well that way, but humans created the system.

mind you, these are very vague memories of about 4 years ago, so im sorry for the lousy wording recreation. thanks for your input. i'd like to hear from those who are good at the subjects in discussion especially

*
#1 Movie fan~ he's got so much skill it oozes out of his skin in the form of acne. ~family comes first~
RaGe
Profile Blog Joined July 2004
Belgium9947 Posts
December 01 2009 13:57 GMT
#2
The 'arguments' you bring in are kind of bad.

A function being undefined doesn't mean it's a flaw of the system.

As for multiplication coming before summation, that's just a notational agreement mathematicians made so notation would be easier. If it would be the other way around, nothing in math would change, except most formulas would need more parentheses.

If you want to argue against the scientific models as a representation of general truth in our world, you should look in to the more concrete 'postmodern' evidence of this, which is obviously a bit more complicated.
Moderatorsometimes I get intimidated by the size of my right testicle
justiceknight
Profile Blog Joined May 2008
Singapore5741 Posts
December 01 2009 13:57 GMT
#3
i hate maths and physics especially measurements which has lots of types,cant they just use CM only? using inches or foot/feet makes me hard to measure.
Integra
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
Sweden5626 Posts
December 01 2009 14:04 GMT
#4
science never claimed to prove anything as truth.

Anything that is proven through science is always considered flawed, you can always improve it. If no major problems are found you can always refine the way it is measured or make it easier to use or easier to understand etc.
"Dark Pleasure" | | I survived the Locust war of May 3, 2014
Zortch
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
Canada635 Posts
December 01 2009 14:08 GMT
#5
In mathematics we start with some assumptions and prove things using them. There is no approximation to "truth". Everything you prove in mathematics is a logically true statement.
In physics we have more approximations, but I don't really know much about physics so I'll leave this alone.
x/0 being undefined means exactly that: it is undefined. That means, we have not defined what we want it to mean. x/0 is just a symbol, and we could define it to mean whatever we want and see where it gets us. From an algebraic stand point we think of this as x*(the inverse of 0). Where the inverse of 0 is some thing such that when we multiply it by 0 we get 1. Now no such thing exists in our common notion of numbers, which is why x/0 is undefined. We could invent something that has this property and throw it in and see where it takes us. The problem is that(as far as I know) it doesn't lead to anything interesting.


I think people think of mathematics in wrong way. It isn't some fixed thing. If you don't like the way something works you can just change it and get something different. That may or may not be a useful/interesting thing to do, and there is the real question.

And what does it meant to be able to prove everything? Like every truth in the universe? What is a truth? This is going to go to philosophy which I am definetly not qualified to discuss haha.
As a matter of fact however, given as set of axioms there will alwyas be a statement that can neither be proved true or false using those axioms. This was proved by Gudel, a mathematicial and logician, in the 30's I think it was. We have encountered a few of these statements, famously one that is now called the axiom of choice. People figured that it was something they wanted to be true so it is common assumed as an axiom by most (not all) mathematicians.
So, can math prove everything? Not even in its own little world..

Hopefully some of this made sense.
Respect is everything. ~ARchon
RedTerror
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
New Zealand742 Posts
December 01 2009 14:08 GMT
#6
Math is not a human construct, its an ultimate truth whose answer is defined by its meaning. Kind of like "I think, therefore I am".
As for dividing by zero, I always thought of it as trying to see how many empty cups of water it would it take to fill a bucket with water.

Physics is all theory and no matter how strong the evidence is you can't really prove anything.
datscilly
Profile Blog Joined November 2007
United States529 Posts
December 01 2009 14:11 GMT
#7
It seems you're too caught in the notation of math. When your say multiplication comes before summation, it's just a convention to avoid writing too many parentheses. You can pick either multiplication before addition, or addition before multiplication. Depending on which you choose, you avoid having to write parentheses in that case. More importantly, it doesn't say anything about math. The essence, or core, of math is unchanged, you're just complaining about notation.

A similar thing holds for the first bullet point. It's not surprising to me that when you divide a number by zero, you don't get a number. It happens that when you add, subtract, or multiple two numbers, you always get a number, but consider the logarithm. When you take the log of a positive number, you get a number. However, taking the log of zero or a negative number does not result in a number.
spinesheath
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Germany8679 Posts
December 01 2009 14:17 GMT
#8
Math and physics are very different from each other.

Physics is empirical, whatever physicians say, you always have to take into account that it could be completely wrong. Apples might fall upwards tomorrow. Physicians do know that and don't make any claims about truth. But, assuming that things stay as they are, physics provide a very precise model of reality.

Mathematicians use a given set of logic operations on a given set of axioms. Everything that is built upon that makes perfect sense and is true in the given system of logic and axioms. Unless someone manages to prove a contradiction within that system, since until now nobody was able to prove that there are no contradictions (as far as I know).
Division is well defined function. Not every function has to be defined on R.
If you have a good reason to disagree with the above, please tell me. Thank you.
liosama
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
Australia843 Posts
December 01 2009 14:23 GMT
#9
On December 01 2009 22:51 UGC4 wrote:
- if math/physics is such accurate systems, why do they have such innate flaws? for example, x / 0 is undefined, etc.


I don't know where to start here I'll be extremely brief. Firstly you are absolutely wrong in describing "x/0" as an innate flaw. This is not a 'flaw' of mathematics it is a mere happening, something which simply exists. Which leads me to the next point you made.

On December 01 2009 22:51 UGC4 wrote:
- why would math/physics be any more special or accurate when they are nothing but a human construct? for example, multiplication comes before summation, but says who? obviously it works well that way, but humans created the system.


What do you *mean* by special or accurate. It doesn't 'work well' that way, this was a finding, a logical pattern that people saw which simplifies multiple additions to one multiplication function.

The whole foundation of mathematics is based off very fundamental axioms, which you could argue are human constructs/assumptions, but that's about the only assumptions we ever make in the existence of being human. Everything else mathematics is, an exact city built off these axioms.

Mathematics is just a language, that's all it is. It is a langauge that one can use to describe something in utmost (quantifiable) detail.

Example,


The leaves on the trees were blowing in unison with the wind, the stem of one leaf however, was too weak to stay on the branch and thus was caught by the wind when all of a sudden a bird came swooping down with tremendous speed to eat it"

This is an English sentence we are describing things qualitatively.

All mathematics is, (in the context of physics now) is just a language to accurately describe what i s happening here so scientists and people who seek the truth to write out what this means in mathematics.

So the leaves are connected to the tree branches where the current wind speed is Wspeed = 42knots. Travelling in a direction NE 47degrees.
Leaf = Leaf y was connected on to its branch with a departing force of x Newtons. A Wspeed of Xknots produces a force of roughly X*Y Newtons, where Y is a constant which I calculate in controlled experiments. Because WspeedOnLeaf(Newtons) is > HoldStrengthOfLeaf the leaf disconnects and a bird travelling in the motion of bla
bla
bla

Do you see my point. This is mathematics. The 'flaws' in it are only a fault of the person writing the story.



When you want to argue something as intricate and detailed as mathematics you have to be extremely precise about your definitions and strong on your point of argument.

Free Palestine
MoltkeWarding
Profile Joined November 2003
5195 Posts
December 01 2009 14:23 GMT
#10
Physics is not completely empirical, since it both begins and ends with idealized systems, rather than descriptive inferences. However physics, unlike math, cannot be a completely a priori system of knowledge, confirmed by its own definitions.
Ao_Jun
Profile Blog Joined July 2003
Denmark396 Posts
December 01 2009 14:27 GMT
#11
On December 01 2009 23:08 ViruX wrote:
Math is not a human construct, its an ultimate truth whose answer is defined by its meaning. Kind of like "I think, therefore I am".
As for dividing by zero, I always thought of it as trying to see how many empty cups of water it would it take to fill a bucket with water.

Physics is all theory and no matter how strong the evidence is you can't really prove anything.


I disagree, math is a human construct. It is the tool we use to work with physics, and physics is the ultimate truth.

When i say the ultimate truth, it might sound wrong, but i really believe that if we know the starting conditions of everything (This is not actually possible as 'proven' by heisenberg) we can predict everything that follows.

Now to get back on track: Math is true. It can only be true because we defined every last bit of it as true. But you can get nothing out of math unless you apply it to a physical system.

Ehr... if this makes no sense i appologize.
you are one of the least benigtedly unintelligent organic life forms it has been my profound lack of pleasure not to be able to avoid meeting.
vAltyR
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States581 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-12-01 14:45:50
December 01 2009 14:33 GMT
#12
Addition comes before multiplication because multiplication is iterated addition. Multiplying two numbers x * y is calculated by adding x to itself y times. In the same way then, is raising by powers: x^y is nothing but x multiplied by itself y times, or x added to itself x times y times. Therefore, because multiplication inherently depends on addition, you cannot teach or learn multiplication before addition.

x/0 being undefined is just another truth. Tell you what, I can apply formal logic to this one. Let's assume that you can divide by zero. Then you can divide something into zero equal parts. If you have zero equal parts, then you have nothing. however, since you started with something, you obviously didn't have nothing, so by contradiction, division by zero is undefined.

EDIT: You want to talk about flaws, how about pi? The ONLY time the diameter of a circle is *ever* used in mathematics is in the definition of pi. Every other formula uses the radius. So why doesn't pi? In fact, the original definition of pi was the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's *radius* but somehow it got changed to the diameter. Those math people who might be interested in this sort of thing should read this article (PDF download).
내 호버크라프트는 장어로 가득 차 있어요
Ao_Jun
Profile Blog Joined July 2003
Denmark396 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-12-01 14:46:45
December 01 2009 14:37 GMT
#13
A more philisophical approach would be: Everything in life is defined by you. There is no ultimate truth except what you yourself perceive as true. Is an apple really an apple? What if you want it to be an mammoth? Then to you, it is a mammoth. The only problem is that in your mind you have stored the specifications of something being a apple, and something being a mammoth, so you cannot just say to yourself that something is not an apple when it clearly meets all the apple requirements..

Sorry.. i'll let myself out.
you are one of the least benigtedly unintelligent organic life forms it has been my profound lack of pleasure not to be able to avoid meeting.
citi.zen
Profile Joined April 2009
2509 Posts
December 01 2009 14:41 GMT
#14
Math starts with axioms and uses them to prove theorems, using accepted logical operations. This forces you to examine your fundamental assumptions more closely than other endeavors. There is no TRUTH with capital letters in math, only increased transparency.

As rage and others mentioned, your examples are suspect. Indeterminate does not mean "wrong" or "false" - it just means that particular operation cannot yield you a simple answer with the set of assumptions you have made. This happens often in life, even more than in math I would say! Note that changing your assumptions will make it possible to define division by zero: in abstract algebra you can extend the real numbers (or other commutative rings) into a "wheel" version, where division by zero is permitted. A bit more here.
Aut viam inveniam, aut faciam.
auffenpuffer
Profile Joined December 2009
1 Post
Last Edited: 2009-12-01 15:05:32
December 01 2009 15:01 GMT
#15
I was going to write a post but it proved overhelming. Instead I recommed you some books if topic interests you:

Against Method - Paul Feyerabend. About how physics is done and its relation to philosophy of science.

Philosophical papers I: Realism, Rationalism And Scientific Method - Paul Feyerabend. Clearly less fun to read than Against Method or any other on the list.

Laboratory Work: Construction Of Scientific Facts - Bruno Latour. Controversial classic (featuring amusing chapter about anthropologist who visits a strange tribe with peculiar mythology: the scientists.).

Constructing Quarks - Andrew Pickering. Less controversial than Latour, but requires more knowledge of physics to be interesting read.

IProofs and Refutations - Imre Lakatos. Concerning mathematics.

I also recommed that you borrow like a one book of Popper to go with these. When you feel head explosion coming, just spend 15 minutes with Popper.
Cloud
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
Sexico5880 Posts
December 01 2009 15:06 GMT
#16
This "math is an invention or a discovery" debate has been going on since the dawn of time with no conclusion, not that that its usefulness would transcend the philosophical.

And I wouldn't call physics the ultimate truth. Because it changes constantly. First we used our senses to measure nature, then we used an optical microscope, then an electron microscrope. The "truth" changed in every case.

And well even though science is "flawed" with it's axioms and whatever, it may be only because we as humans are flawed: we don't have perfect senses, perfect intuition or even a perfect language, and on the latter one, it may be so flawed that some questions that can be formulated are not even worth answering. The most exemplary being "ultimate questions" such as the ones you're asking.

Though, if you compare to the alternatives to finding "ultimate truth" such as religion, the great part about science is that it can be proven wrong.
BlueLaguna on West, msg for game.
vAltyR
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States581 Posts
December 01 2009 15:26 GMT
#17
On December 01 2009 22:51 UGC4 wrote:
- why would math/physics be any more special or accurate when they are nothing but a human construct? for example, multiplication comes before summation, but says who? obviously it works well that way, but humans created the system.

I reread this after I wrote my previous post. Did you mean in the order of operations? Obviously I assumed you meant when basic math is taught, but in that case addition is usually taught before multiplication, so the only thing I can think of is the order of operations, in which case I have an explanation that is more to your question.

In order to fully explain the question, let's start with the beginning of the order of operations. I'll spoiler it for those who are interested.
+ Show Spoiler +
For reference, the order of operations are:

- Parentheses (functions like log, ln, sin, etc usually imply parentheses as well)
- Exponents
- Multiplication or division
- Addition or subtraction

The reason parentheses are first is because they are explicit in telling someone to (calculate what's inside me first!) It's essentially the mathematician's override button for the order of operations.

Multiplication and division are exactly the same operation, if you think about it in the sense that division is multiplication of the reciprocal, and in the same way addition and subtraction are the same if you think about subtraction as addition of the opposite. This is why multiplication and division are on the same step, and addition and subtraction are on the next step.

Now, the reason the order is Exponents, Multiplication/Division, Addition/Subtraction is based on the reasons I outlined in my previous post. Multiplication is nothing more than iterated addition, so when we have a more complicated operation, you can think of multiplication as shorthand for more addition, the same way exponentials are shorthand for more multiplication.

So, I think what you're asking here is, if we had the equation w + x * y, why do we assume w + (x * y) instead of (w + x) * y? The reason is multiplication is really just addition anyways, so when you evaluate the equation, you're really just rewriting it w + x + x + x... until you had enough x's.

In short, All of the basic mathematical operators only use the numbers directly before and directly after, unless we use parentheses explicitly stating otherwise.


Also, I'd like to argue your point that humans created the system. We didn't really create it, the universe did. As much as I hate using kindergarten examples, if I have two apples and I give you one, it's not a human construction that I only have one apple left. You could argue that the notation is a human construct, and it is, but the abstractions it represents is not.
내 호버크라프트는 장어로 가득 차 있어요
Nytefish
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
United Kingdom4282 Posts
December 01 2009 15:31 GMT
#18
I'm insulted that you would include physics in the same breath as maths when considering their logical purity.
No I'm never serious.
Adeny
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
Norway1233 Posts
December 01 2009 15:34 GMT
#19
X / 0 is definately not undefined. It's absolutely impossible to spread a finite value of X over a negative infinite space, in the 3 dimensions as we know them.
Navane
Profile Blog Joined February 2007
Netherlands2748 Posts
Last Edited: 2009-12-01 15:37:32
December 01 2009 15:36 GMT
#20
There is very little truth claimed by math and physics. That makes it pure. It's like in poker, if you know someone plays very little hands, and whenever he plays a hand he has the cards to back it up, he is a solid player. Same goes for math + physics. Since the amount of truth they claim is so few, whenever it claims something, it's very likely to be true.

To me, math is creating world with a set of rules. (like sc is a world with a set of rules). Mathematicians create, and have created, a lot of different worlds. Phyicisists take various of those worlds and apply the accompanied set of rules to their real world problem. If the mathematic world behaves the same as the real world, they keep those set of rules. That way they can predict behaviour in the real world by calculating it in their mathematical world.

You could create a world where x/0 is defined. I did that with a friend. I was like "why is -1^(1/2) = i? I claim that x/0 = p." But what happened is that in the world where x/0 = p, it is also true that -1 = 1. This is not a very useful world. You can't apply it to any real world situations I can think of.
1 2 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 5h 5m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 175
ProTech80
StarCraft: Brood War
Leta 150
Noble 115
Shine 71
sSak 70
NaDa 28
Icarus 13
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm69
League of Legends
JimRising 800
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K633
m0e_tv264
Coldzera 171
Other Games
summit1g9944
hungrybox245
XaKoH 199
fpsfer 1
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1522
BasetradeTV53
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• practicex 38
• Sammyuel 19
• Kozan
• Migwel
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• Diggity6
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush1566
• Lourlo996
• Stunt423
Other Games
• Scarra851
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
5h 5m
Classic vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs Maru
Online Event
7h 5m
Kung Fu Cup
7h 5m
BSL Team Wars
14h 5m
RSL Revival
1d 5h
Maestros of the Game
1d 9h
ShoWTimE vs Classic
Clem vs herO
Serral vs Bunny
Reynor vs Zoun
Cosmonarchy
1d 11h
Bonyth vs Dewalt
[BSL 2025] Weekly
1d 13h
RSL Revival
2 days
Maestros of the Game
2 days
[ Show More ]
BSL Team Wars
2 days
Afreeca Starleague
3 days
Snow vs Sharp
Jaedong vs Mini
Wardi Open
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
Afreeca Starleague
4 days
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
LiuLi Cup
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Copa Latinoamericana 4
SEL Season 2 Championship
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
Chzzk MurlocKing SC1 vs SC2 Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1

Upcoming

2025 Chongqing Offline CUP
BSL Polish World Championship 2025
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
EC S1
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.