For example: I don’t believe in the axiom of choice nor in the continuum hypothesis.

Not stuff like “math is useless” or “people hate math because it’s not well taught”, those are opinions about math.

I’ll start: exponentiation should be left-associative, which means a^b should mean b×b×…×b } a times.

  • JASN_DE@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ll start: exponentiation should be left-associative, which means a^b should mean b×b×…×b } a times.

    Interesting. Why?

  • Jagger2097@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 months ago

    Everyone keeps talking about pi r²

    This doesn’t make any sense because pies are round. Brownies are square

  • Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    “Terryology may have some merits and deserves consideration.”

    I don’t hold this opinion, but I can guarantee you it’s unpopular.

    • Ad4mWayn3@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Who did ever say that? Not a single article that I’ve read about Terryology has praised it. I guess the Joe Rogan podcast helped it gather some followers?

  • BotsRuinedEverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I believe that the polar plot of prime numbers that reveals spirals and rays and when extended out to millions of numbers shows deeper fractals and geometric patterns is a glimpse into the structure of something we haven’t yet discovered.

    Maybe it’s the higher dimensional structure of a photon, maybe it’s something we don’t even know about, but the fact that math describes everything in our universe EXCEPT prime numbers sounds like nonsense. There’s something staring us right in the face that we can’t see yet.

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Most real-world phenomena would be better represented as regular Directed Graphs than Directed Acyclic Graphs, even ones that are traditionally abstracted as DAGs.

  • palordrolap@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago
    1. I have this odd, perhaps part troll, feeling that there are two, and only two, roots of the Riemann Zeta function that aren’t on the critical line, and are instead mirrors of each other at either side of it, like some weird pair of complex conjugates. Further, while I really want their real parts to be 1/4 and 3/4, the actual variance from 1/2 will be some inexplicable irrational number.

    2. Multiplication order in current mathematics standards should happen the other way around when it’s in a non-commutative algebra. I think this because transfinite multiplication apparently requires the transfinite part to go before any finite part to prevent collapse of meaning. For example, we can’t write 2ω for the next transfinite ordinal because 2ω is just ω again on account of transfinite and backwards multiplication weirdness, and we have to write ω·2 or ω×2 instead like we’re back at primary school.

    • Ad4mWayn3@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Multiplication order in current mathematics standards should happen the other way around when it’s in a non-commutative algebra.

      The good thing about multiplication being commutative and associative is that you can think about it either way (e.g. 3x2 can be thought of as "add two three times). The “benefit” of carrying this idea to higher-order operations is that they become left-associative (meaning they can be evaluated from left to right), which is slightly more intuitive. For instance in lambda calculus, a sequence of church numerals n1 n2 … nK mean nK ^ nK-1 ^ … ^ n1 in traditional notation.

      For example, we can’t write 2ω for the next transfinite ordinal because 2ω is just ω again on account of transfinite and backwards multiplication weirdness, and we have to write ω·2 or ω×2 instead like we’re back at primary school.

      I’d say the deeper issue with ordinal arithmetic is that Knuth’s up-arrow notation with its recursive definition becomes useless to define ordinals bigger than ε0, because something like ω^(ω^^ω) = ωε0 = ε0. I don’t understand the exact notion deeply yet, but I suspect there’s some guilt in the fact that hyperoperations are fundamentally right-associative.

  • Prime@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Matrix multiplication should be the other way around, i.e. not like cascading functions. Oh and function cabbages should also be the other way around :) i prefer to read it not like a manga