Mathematics and Logic

[Anonymous No.15818772]

Does /lit/ know mathematics and logic? Did they help you to understand philosophy better, or just become a better analytical reader in general?
It is obvious that both extremes(liberal arts/stem only) are wrong, and philosophy has always been close to these two disciplines.
Since the academia is completely useless and cannot actually teach anything these days, have any of you been successful with such endeavor as learning logic and mathematics by yourself?

[Anonymous No.15818793]

Math is fucking retarded. Like how the fuck is "0" a number? I have 0 fucks to give and I lost them all, how many do I left? Like, what?

[Anonymous No.15818811]

>>15818793
If you started with 0 and you lost them all you have 0. Very easy calculation to make.
>>15818772
I studied math at university, but did not graduate and went on to teach myself programming instead. I still think math is important though. Knowing how to quantify things is just as important as knowing how to categorize them.

[Anonymous No.15818909]

I have decided to study logic and at least some of mathematics after failing to fully understand Plato's Parmenides. I can't even imagine the depths waiting for me at German Idealism. I'd rather come in prepared, then become a pseud.

[Anonymous No.15818923]

>>15818772
I'm using this, it's similar to opic https://www.logicmatters.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/TeachYourselfLogic2020.pdf

[Anonymous No.15818928]

>>15818793
It's a value. The symbol is predicated by the value. Frege

[Anonymous No.15818948]

I love math

[Anonymous No.15819556]

>>15818772
>No Euclid's Elements
>No Russell-Whitehead Principia Mathematica

[Anonymous No.15820442]

I, as were probably most people who trained in logic under someone who studied at UCLA, learned from Montague and Kalish's 'Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning'. I believe you have to buy an older edition though because I've heard the most recent one has bunch of errors. The book itself is written in an incredibly autistic way, but the Logic Program (now called Logic: 2010) that goes along with it is brilliant (once you have mastered its non-intuitive interface).

Alongside some other resources, like Smullyan, working through any basic logic text book should fully teach you classical logic. The non-classical logics are a different story, but you have to get there first.

[Anonymous No.15820449]

>>15819556
Those are covered in the books

[Anonymous No.15820455]

>>15820442
Could you give me a resource to learn Gentzen style natural deduction?

[Anonymous No.15820460]

>>15818772
You literally don't need more math beyond just counting and addition/subtraction and multiplication/division shit. Everything else is just pointless abstractions and mental masturbation

[Anonymous No.15820507]

>>15820455
What exactly about it do you want to learn? I'll admit I'm not that well versed in it, I moved away from the core analytic areas and into theory of value in grad school, but I did study some philosophy of mathematics. Are you looking to learn about the properties of the system or how to apply it in mathematical deduction? The former is covered in most mathematical logic texts. The only book I know explicitly dedicated to analyzing it, which I haven't read, is by Pawitz (who is considered to be a respectable logician). I'm sure you can find a good source online though, perhaps this https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~david/cl/natural-deduction-pfenning.pdf is would help?

[Anonymous No.15820514]

>>15820507
*the later, sorry. But through that application you'll still learn the foundations of it

[Anonymous No.15820559]

>>15820507
Yeah I was using Gentzen-Pawitz, idk it's just way more confusing than fitch or tree systems. Is there an epli5?

[Anonymous No.15820568]

>>15820507
Particularly I'm confused because you start w either all conclusions or all premises and it still works.

[Anonymous No.15820601]

>>15820507
I have a book on the properties of it, I hope I'm following a list. But it seems really counterintuitive to me but it looks fun. The only two videos on it on yt that I found just work through the motions no explanations

[Anonymous No.15820622]

>>15820568
>>15820559
>>15820601

I'm definitely not qualified to help you with this, my knowledge doesn't extend too far out of Hilbert style deduction. I bet if you were to send an email to a logician that works in natural deduction though they'd answer your questions. During my time in grad school I found that professors I sent cold emails to would usually respond if I had reasonable questions or needed to ask for access to a paper. I doubt logicians get too many unsolicited communications about their work anyway so they might find it exciting.

[Anonymous No.15820625]

>>15820622
I'll spread my wings ty

[Anonymous No.15820639]

>>15818772
this chart is dogshit it triggers me so bad.

read spivak and taos analysis sequence and youve covered in one fell swoop this ENTIRE chart which is just the same retarded remedial-tier first principlesover and over and over again.

[Anonymous No.15820645]

>>15820460
"God invented the natural numbers, all else is the work of man.

[Anonymous No.15820709]

>>15820639
What's so shit about it? I am too far into the Smith book already, have to finish it. And it's not that bad, as for baby's first logic.

[Anonymous No.15820720]

>>15820709
Yeah smith is good except he does a bad job in part 3. I really didn't like his explanations on the other proof systems and his proofs for the limits of logic would have been foreign to me if I didn't already know what they were. Set theory was brief but fun. What's your next book?

[Anonymous No.15820737]

Natural deduction: the logical basis of axiom systems

on libgen

[Anonymous No.15820742]

>>15820720
Hammack, I guess? My problem is that I completely ignored math both in school and in uni. I really, really need to refresh my knowledge on a foundational level, and I want to actually understand how everything works this time. That's why I think to spend some time on those logic books. And I believe it will come in handy in other things, such as philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15820747]

>>15820742
the easiest logic book is Propositional and Predicate Calculus: A Model of Argument 2005th Edition
by Derek Goldrei

[Anonymous No.15820772]

>>15820460
You need more even to grasp some of the Plato's concepts.

[Anonymous No.15820789]

Mathematics and logic are certainly philosophically interesting and essential in their own subfields but they are not generally helpful in studying philosophy. They are not fundamental enough; no amount of logic can ascertain what the nature and functioning of reason is, which is the philosophically significant question.

[Anonymous No.15820794]

>>15820747
I have that book, it's good fol but he needs baby logic covered well.
I'm guessing you know gentzen but are contractually obligated to be a bitch and pretend you dk or can scam me out of money

[Anonymous No.15820802]

>>15820747
At least until I kms, it's so funny right?

[Anonymous No.15820820]

>>15820709
smith seems like a fine book. not a textbook.

razor: does it have exercises? if not then it's not a real math book.

[Anonymous No.15820826]

>>15820820
It does have plenty. It's well known for having too much by virtue of publisher's being generous with an extra long book.

[Anonymous No.15820872]

>>15820455
Different anon but check out Smullyan, First-Order Logic

[Anonymous No.15820893]

>>15820820
Smith has plenty of exercises.

[Anonymous No.15821014]

>>15820820
>>razor: does it have exercises? if not then it's not a real math book.
undergrad af

[Anonymous No.15821016]

Logic feels like busy work compared to mathematics

[Anonymous No.15821050]

Goldrei even has a book on set theory

Classic set theory: For guided independent study
cover

Author(s): Derek C. Goldrei

Series: Chapman & Hall Mathematics

Publisher: Springer, Year: 1996

ISBN: 0412606100,9780412606106

Search in WorldCat | Search in Goodreads | Search in AbeBooks | Search in Amazon.com
Description:
The book is designed for students studying on their own, without access to lecturers and other reading, along the lines of the internationally renowned course produced by the Open University. There are thus a large number of exercises within the main body of the text designed to help students engage with the subject, many of which have full teaching solutions. In addition, there are a number of exercises without answers so that students studying under the guidance of a tutor may be assessed.

[Anonymous No.15821057]

>>15820568
I studied this a few years back in a course I took on first order logic and mathematical logic. You need to know some axioms and have MP to do any of these theorems. "Set Theory, Logic and their Limitations" is the book for you and any student who has a good grasp on set theory and first order logic. If you haven't done sentencing logic and first order predicate logic don't even bother with meta logic.

[Anonymous No.15821060]

>>15821057
sentencing = sentential fuck auto correct

[Anonymous No.15821086]

>>15818772
New and improved chart.

>>15819556
Posting this just shows that you have no mathematical training whatsoever. Euclid's elements is a beautiful book, but it's in no way suitable for learning synthetic geometry in the modern age. One major flaw is that the axiomatic structure is flawed by modern standards. If you want to learn synthetic geometry use Birkhoff & Beatley instead. Mathematics is not philosophy, original works are not more "pure" in any sense. The ideas are disconnected from their discoverers or early proponents.

>>15820789
This is pretty accurate. A very, very small subset of mathematicians even care about the so-called foundations of mathematics. There was of course a massive project of creating solid foundations for math in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but Gödel pretty much killed that. Math is beautiful, and should be studied for its own virtues. The one thing it might help you with in philosophy is understanding the importance of clarity and definitions, as well as being very, very careful about your statements. There's an old mathematics joke about this:

A statistician, philosopher, and mathematician are travelling by train through Scotland. The statistician looks out the window and sees a black sheep.
Statistician: Amazing, all Scottish sheep are black!
Philosopher: No, no, that's a logical fallacy. You only know that _some_ sheep in Scotland are black!
Mathematician: Well, actually, you only really know that in Scotland there is a field on which there is a sheep that is black on at least one of its sides.

[Anonymous No.15821106]

>>15821086
Why would one skip Logic and go straight into mathematics? The OP guide is better for beginners, I think.

[Anonymous No.15821150]

>>15821106
Because the amount of logic you need to know is usually covered in mathematics books. E.g. Lang has an "interlude on logic" section.

[Anonymous No.15821233]

>>15818772
I would recommend you to read "The Introduction to Mathematical Logic" by Alonzo Church, if you are newbie in math, you can read introduction only - the introduction itself is a separate little textbook. It has everything - math, philosophy, history, the most ultimate guide. BTW, Alonzo Church was Alan Turing's math professor at university, so you can clearly see he is a hell of a teacher. He also was based christian and invented Lambda Calculus which makes him proto-demigod of programming

[Anonymous No.15821255]

>Does /lit/ know mathematics and logic?
Let's find out!

[Anonymous No.15821306]

>>15821255
Is it in the center of the top face?

[Anonymous No.15821324]

>>15821306

[Anonymous No.15821360]

>>15821324
i see you do not know the answer

[Anonymous No.15821380]

>>15821360
I see your faculties of deduction are defective.

[Anonymous No.15821439]

>>15821255
You put the food on the floor away from the box.

[Anonymous No.15821489]

[Anonymous No.15821500]

>>15821255
it's on the back left angle on the same face a B. the bug will have to walk for 3 unites.

[Anonymous No.15821509]

>>15821500
i mean C

[Anonymous No.15821536]

>>15821324
Ah, I read up on the problem (read: cheated). Very interesting, and rather counter-intuitive. I hadn't considered the path around the box actually being shorter, only considering the "straight line" path on a net-diagram of the box.

[Anonymous No.15821545]

>>15821500
>>15821509
my fault, it's B.

[Anonymous No.15821550]

I hated maths in school, I could never wrap my head around x and y and all that shit. Why the fuck do they use letters for numbers?

[Anonymous No.15821573]

you don't need anything higher than finger-counting and bayesian heuristics. don't fall for judeo lies my brethren

[Anonymous No.15821612]

Maths is pointless bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15821663]

>>15818772
De-weeb'd
>>15821086
Why would you make this with ahego faces in the background, what was even going through your head?

[Anonymous No.15821665]

>>15818793
>>15820460
>>15820645
>>15821016
>>15821550
>>15821573
>>15821612
math = logic. if you can't into math, you can't into logic and vice versa. if you can't into logic you are obtuse. if you are obtuse you should just do manual work. you seem to have a clue of it yourselves, since you seem to value math on its every day utility. as if a mathematician said that the iliad is useless because you don't eat it. you are worse than beasts.

[Anonymous No.15821684]

>>15821665
I'm a matheux, not some pale crypto-pedophile who fiddles with numbers all day for the sake of mental masturbation. God bless them though.

[Anonymous No.15821687]

>>15821663
Sry senpai that's not canon

[Anonymous No.15821699]

>>15821684
you are an animal. you just blabber all day about guenon, heidegger, astrology, and the likes and you think that it makes you different from some thot blabbering about her lipsticks and her shoes.

[Anonymous No.15821702]

>>15821665
>math = logic
This is wrong. Logic is an area that is very different from mathematics. It is a subject devoid of all imagination and creativity that math brings to the table. Sometimes logicians claim to be doing maths but in reality no mathematician will ever care about the logician's work in their day-to-day activity. Of course, it could be said that mathematics uses basic logic as a tool that ensures the proofs are sounds and correct but the same thing could be said about physics or biology. Every intellectually rigorous subject uses basic principles of logic to ensure their arguments are sound.
It also doesn't help that mathematics only started to obtain logically rigorous foundations, particularly in the area of analysis, in the beginning of the 20th century. Only a fool would claim that that's when mathematics started. By the beginning of the 20th century, mathematics as a subject was already a gigantic beast of ingenuity and creativity. The first rigorous definition of the real numbers was proposed by Cantor in 1871, yet a lot of the main theorems in real and complex analysis were already developed by that time.

[Anonymous No.15821709]

>>15821536
The issue here is that there is more than one way to construct the net-diagram of the box.

[Anonymous No.15821714]

>>15821702
Not him but math is definitely a subfield of logic metaphysically. It's an asymmetric relationship

[Anonymous No.15821724]

>>15821714
>Not him but math is definitely a subfield of logic metaphysically
It's not. Most logicians barely know any maths.

[Anonymous No.15821731]

>>15821724
Any no mathematician will call themselves a logician. These are two completely different disciplines.

[Anonymous No.15821737]

>>15821724
They're separate fields but I'm not speaking existentially. The experience of a logician is different of a mathematician. I'm saying you can found partially math, at least the logical operations like equivalence or law of identity in = or commutative associative law, in logic. Granted math is also values of quantities and language or semiotic system but you can't define logic by math or math by biology. Frege had a good analogy of it with a deck if cards. You can't predicate numbers off a material object. It's predicated, partially, off logic.

[Anonymous No.15821743]

>>15821724
Distribution law is a form of transitivity. It's not perfectly mapped out but you'd be throwing the baby out w the bathwater in this sense by denying it.

[Anonymous No.15821759]

>>15821702
you post is pure trash, but i agree with your core idea. still, for the purpose of my argument , it makes no difference whatsoever whether logic is math or it is included within math (while math itself would be logic + creativity).

[Anonymous No.15821765]

Principia Mathematica exposed math as being the enigmatic bullshit that it really is. We aren't even sure what numbers are yet. For the sake of argument, consider the below hypothesis.

There are an infinite number of numbers.

Therefore there are an infinite number of possible values of 1+1. Therefore the probability that 1+1=2 equals zero. We express this identity as [math]P^1_1(2)=0[/math]. Indeed [math]P^1_1(x)=0[/math] for all x. However in the "real" numbers we must have [math]\int_{-\infty}^\infty P^1_1(x)\,dx=1[/math], a contradiction by the Dominated Convergence Theorem.

The obvious resolution is to introduce enough infinite and infinitesimal numbers to the so-called "real" numbers that the line ceases to be second countable. However the simplest and most elegant solution is simply to notice that infinity does not exist: that there is at most a potential (rather than completed) infinitude of real numbers, and the value of 1+1 is an unknown, possibly changing, value among them.

[Anonymous No.15821776]

>>15821765
lowest IQ post i have EVER read on all boards of 4chan, including /x/. truely the absolute lowest, im almost impressed. out of curiosity, does your gvt let you drive a car?

[Anonymous No.15821789]

>>15818772
I read the first half of "A Concise Introduction to Logic" by Patrick J. Hurley

I barely remember anything from it to be ernest.

[Anonymous No.15821791]

>>15818772
If i don't get my high school diploma then i'll just read these books in my spare so eventually i'll have enough mathematical expierence and knowledge for a decent a computer porgramming career.

Don't know how much value my claims are holding but it's one of the only options.

[El Arcón No.15821793]

>>15821776
>doing what the glowniggers tells you to
You're never going to make it, niggorama. I'm the smartest person that's ever going to grace this dumbfuck thread, single handedly dragging the average IQ up beyond average. I am the Lord.

[Anonymous No.15821806]

>>15821765
What the fuck even is this post.

[Anonymous No.15821815]

>>15821699
Ok crypto pedophile.

[Anonymous No.15821853]

"11 - LANGUAGE AS A PRESUMPTIVE SCIENCE.—The importance of language for the development of culture lies in the fact that in language man has placed a world of his own beside the other, a position which he deemed so fixed that he might therefrom lift the rest of the world off its hinges, and make himself master of it. Inasmuch as man has believed in the ideas and names of things as æternæ veritates for a great length of time, he has acquired that pride by which he has raised himself above the animal; he really thought that in language he possessed the knowledge of the world. The maker of language was not modest enough to think that he only gave designations to things, he believed rather that with his words he expressed the widest knowledge of the things ; in reality language is the first step in the endeavour after science. Here also it is belief in ascertained truth, from which the mightiest sources of strength have flowed. Much later—only now—it is dawning upon men that they have propagated a tremendous error in their belief in language. Fortunately it is now too late to reverse the development of reason, which is founded upon that belief. Logic, also, is founded upon suppositions to which nothing in the actual world corresponds,—for instance, on the supposition of the equality of things, and the identity of the same thing at different points of time,—but that particular science arose out of the contrary belief (that such things really existed in the actual world). It is the same with mathematics, which would certainly not have arisen if it had been known from the beginning that in Nature there are no exactly straight lines, no real circle, no absolute standard of size."
- Friedrich Nietzsche in "Human, All Too Human"

[Anonymous No.15821900]

>>15821853
What is that Neetche? Shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.15821989]

>>15821759
>you post is pure trash
Why do you say that?

[Anonymous No.15822025]

>>15818772
There's literally nothing wrong with math academia. You're never going to teach yourself to the phd level, literally nobody has ever done this. Even "Self taught" geniuses like Ramanujan went to university, several times (he kept getting kicked out for failing other subjects), and even though he made serious advances, according to GH Hardy his mathematical education was really just starting by the time he died.

[El Arcón No.15822031]

[Anonymous No.15822037]

>>15822031
>muh references
makes you weep for humanity

[Anonymous No.15822108]

>>15822031
Jonathan Tooker, better known for other work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YughBleBJe8

[Anonymous No.15823408]

>>15821255
i can't believe /lit/ still can't get this. its literally 10th grade math. you should be able to derive two quadratics from this image with pythagoreans theorem and then you simply equate them and solve for x. the answer everyone is looking up with the complicated unfolding is overcomplicating it. you can tell from the symmetry that you only need to compare two unfoldings, or two paths, which is where you get your two quadratics.

[Anonymous No.15823454]

>>15818772
how is this chart real hahahahha just like pick up a maths textbook ahahah do math nigga

[Anonymous No.15823645]

>>15823408
Brainletism is true suffering.

[Anonymous No.15823671]

>>15823454
It's not only math, but logic as well.

[Anonymous No.15823683]

>>15822108
lol

[Anonymous No.15823697]

>>15821765
Do you even know Peano arithmetic?

[Anonymous No.15823705]

>>15823671
do
math

[Anonymous No.15823734]

>>15821765
I don't even know where to start. Just fucking read an actual mathematics textbook instead of shitposting and then maybe you'll see why you might just be fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.15823744]

>>15823697
peano axioms dont answer the question of "what is a number" nor do they tell us why arithmetic is applicable to reality. they are just a contrived formalization.

[Anonymous No.15823756]

>>15822031
It's been a LONG time since I've seen that filename. How's life treating you Tooker?

[Anonymous No.15823760]

>>15823744
Plato told us what is a number. Read Parmenides.

[Anonymous No.15823766]

>>15823744
to even suppose that math is about reality and not about formal systems is pure pseud level understanding.

[Anonymous No.15823775]

>>15823744
>peano axioms dont answer the question of "what is a number" nor do they tell us why arithmetic is applicable to reality.
And? Saying that we have being doesn't answer the question of what Being is. That doesn't mean we don't exist though. Also, >>15823766 (checked)

[Anonymous No.15823806]

>>15823766
you are illiterate. I did not say math isn't mostly about the formal systems. my point was that unlike metaphysics, which is also independent of experience, math is useful and has useful applications. why math is useful and metaphysics is not is an interesting question.

[Anonymous No.15823865]

>>15823806
Let me spell it out. Numbers don't have metaphysical reality (c.f. Benacerraf). Their usefulness lies in the rigor of their formalization. I also wouldn't say metaphysics is entirely useful. For instance they way you conceive of counterfactuals will inform your causal semantics and therefore your entire way of modeling a causal situation which is hugely useful in fields like statists or any science that uses quantitative or qualitative variables.

[Anonymous No.15823874]

>>15823865
>is not entirely useful

[Anonymous No.15823875]

Can somebody give me an advice on which is the best or most practical logical approach to formalize a definition logically to derive mathematical euqations from it?

[Anonymous No.15823887]

>>15823875
ZFC

[Anonymous No.15823915]

>>15823806
to add on to this, I would suppose it has to do with the fact that originally, math wasn't "derived" from a contrived formalization like peano axioms or ZFC. arithmetic was derived from experience. you take two groups of single sticks and make them into one group, and now you have two sticks. to pretend that math is purely imaginary formal systems is wrong. peano axioms was something we grafted onto it much, much later and can ultimately be considered as deriving from experience as well since they were formed to fit the existing idea of arithmetic which was in turn derived from experience.
>>15823865
causality is also derived from experience, therefore the only useful parts of these a priori generalizations and rules are those that are again derived from experience.

[Anonymous No.15823969]

>>15823887
ty

[Anonymous No.15823972]

>>15823915
Yeah obviously they are both derived (I hope you mean this informally) from experience. But the interest lies in whether experience informs reality in both cases. I'll come out and say I'm an idealist on these subjects so I reject the notion that math and causation do inform us about more than our mental states (I.e. judgements about x are always about the ideas we have of x and never some x in itself). Though formalizations of math and causation come well after their initial use does not discredit their usefulness as tools for prediction despite the fact they aren't metaphysical real.

[Anonymous No.15824014]

>>15818772
i found statistics infinately enlightening. not because it showed me how to add numbers or that it helped me to see a certian denomination does a certain thing at a certain rate or any ccontigent event, but because it taught me to analyze the metafrapmework in how data is and can be analyzed and manipulated. the biases and opportunities it presents as a medium of cognization.

[Anonymous No.15824061]

>>15823408
lmao
tell me it's a bait, retard.

[Anonymous No.15824076]

>>15824061
your post makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.15824195]

>>15821702
>>15821086
>>15820789
Good posts. I am married to a math PhD and she is the least logical bitch I've ever met.

Also she doesn't do logic or give a fuck about it. She says mathematicians mock and bully logicians.

[Anonymous No.15824234]

>>15821687
Idk I've saved it over OPs

[Anonymous No.15824408]

>>15821086
why does nobody ever include rudin in these charts for analysis? imo his textbooks are some of the best on the subject

[Anonymous No.15824431]

>>15824195
Are you also a math PhD? Is your gf smarter than you?

[Anonymous No.15824452]

>>15818948
Fuck you

[Anonymous No.15824465]

>>15824076
your post is mathematically illiterate. only humanities fags can think that shit to be a solution.
btw the answer is halfway of the back side on the top face, which is sqr(3^2 + 0,5^2) < (2^2 + 2,5^)

[Anonymous No.15824494]

>>15824195
>does math
>doesn't do logic
You either don't understand what math is or you're posturing

[Anonymous No.15824516]

>>15824494
You're retarded. His wife is a maths PhD and she's right that most mathematicians couldn't give two shits about logic. What are your credentials? You probably don't even know what a spectral sequence is.

[Anonymous No.15824525]

>>15824494
he probably means that she isn’t really interested in logic outside of its use in constructing proof etc because generally mathematicians don’t give a fuck about whatever the intricacies are of the logician’s daily bullshit. i do math and i could not care less about whatever new retarded shit logicians have come up with about god or truth or anything else.

[Anonymous No.15824536]

>>15824494
She's pointing and laughing at the screen right now. She says you are 'probably an undergraduate'.

>>15824431
She has big jugs.

[Anonymous No.15824556]

>>15820442
At this point I know who you are.

[Anonymous No.15824564]

>>15824516
I don't but if you deny they two are connected and that logic opens up operations in math then you are foolish. For one Analysis is clearly logic so unless she's never done Calculus then she's done logic.
Also the operations in math can be defined in logic. In classical logic you have the law of identity or whether a is b. In math this is asserted by is 1+1=2. Addition can be mapped w conjunction and subtraction with negation implication.
You can't divorce math from logic if you tried. I'm sure she means the field itself and not logic itself because that's exactly what analysis, abstract algebra etc etc is. What is Euclidean geometry besides an axiomatic system? It's foolish

[Anonymous No.15824572]

>>15824536
Tell her I'm laughing back at her for being a dumb bimbo who just wants attention. What's her focus?

[Anonymous No.15824637]

>>15824536
I'm going to be a jerk because you were, tell your wife to give me her phd. She hasn't earned it

[Anonymous No.15824656]

>>15824536
Post jugs of wife pls.

[Anonymous No.15824963]

>>15821014
name a graduate level math book without exercises

monographs and papers dont count

[Anonymous No.15825929]

>>15821086
>Posting this just shows that you have no mathematical training whatsoever.
Nor would I claim it. Euclid and Russell/Whitehead have their value historically though, and that gives them literary worth for a guide of the sort worth posting on /lit/, when you make a guide to philosophy you don't post textbooks and commentaries without posting the foundational primary sources for a reason, a mere guide to learning mathematics and a /lit/ guide to historical literature in mathematics are not supposed to be identical. If you're going to post a math flowchart on /lit/ you should post the latter.

[Anonymous No.15826178]

bump

[Anonymous No.15826223]

>>15824465
what? I didn't give the answer. I was pointing out why the problem is appropriate for tenth graders and why its pathetic that /lit/ can't do it. its not supposed to be complicated or counter intuitive. its really simple. I know what the answer is, and yours is wrong, mathematically illiterate retard. You should be able to immediately tell your answer is wrong because of the symmetry of the problem. the answer must lie on the diagonal on the top face that, if looking straight down, would intersect both A and B. pic related is the real answer, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15826228]

>>15826223
lel didn't notice x wasn't specified. the answer is the point where x=.75

[Anonymous No.15827727]

Bumping for maths

[Anonymous No.15827893]

>>15818948
Based