I hope this to be my last post on math, but I did want to remind you of a big argument among mathematicians.

Is math something we discover? Or, is it something we invent? You can credibly argue either side and I have over beer and a little weed. (math was more fun in the era of my youth)

Now, if one believes that we "discover math" rather than "invent math", one can believe that by proving a theorem (according to accepted mathematical logic) one has helped to discover something that has been true since the big bang. OTOH, one may say that he/she has invented new mathematics if one believes that math is a human created enterprise.

Pay your money, and take your choice.

I will say that knowing math does not mean one knows what the USA should or should not do in Afghanistan and that any pompous asshat who tries to use knowledge in a field such as math to indicate he has a political answer is just plain wrong. My personal doctor is a very educated and smart lady; but I would not trust her advise on Afghanistan any more than the plumber who was here last week.

I don't want to buy into the personal arguments going on here, but I just want to say that

A theorem is something that's been proven true. Which means it was always true, but we now know it was always true, because we've discovered the proof.

is about as noncontroversial a definition of a theorem as you are likely to find. Those who are having trouble with it (even mocking it) seem not to see the distinction between mathematics and science. Theorems come from the realm of mathematics, where there really is absolute proof. Things that are proven to be true in a formal mathematical system are completely and utterly true, and always have been - in that system.

This does not mean that they correspond to anything in the physical world (the domain of science), but they are not contingent in the way that scientific theories are.

Is math something we discover? Or, is it something we invent?

30 odd years ago I once asked that question of some star maths lecturer from the London School of Economics whose lectures were always packed out like sell out rock gigs. He told me the jury was still out. We both laughed rolled up a tenner and proceed to snort up the fattest lines of marching powder you ever did see.

is about as noncontroversial a definition of a theorem as you are likely to find. Those who are having trouble with it (even mocking it) seem not to see the distinction between mathematics and science.

We don't need to know the difference between maths and science. The bloody nonsensical English speaks for itself. Look at it:

A theorem is something that's been proven true.

(We have to take that on faith)

Which means it was always true,

(In the first clause he is making a deduction from his assertion that preceded it.)

but we now know it was always true,

(Then he starts getting a little uncertain)

because we've discovered the proof

(Which is all rather odd because he told us in the beginning that a theorem by definition was something that had already been proven true. Or else it wouldn't have been a theorem to begin with)

Surprised the bastard didn't get 220 volts between the eyes writing that it is so short circuited.

I couldn't live without it in my work (fabricator, welder). As far as math and Afghanistan goes, I know Alexander the Great, the Moguls, the British Raj and the Russians got their ass handed to them and my calculations foretell us getting the shit kicked out of us too (I pity the fools that would try to invade the Smokey Mountains- them boys are dead shots and know every spring, cave and holler).

As far as the economics, whether it's Keynesian, Austrian or trading pigs for tobacco, someone always gets the short end of the stick. THAT'S why we are an empire- so fat chicks in Camaros can smoke the best weed and text while driving. Ain't it a wonderful fucking world? I just got back from 11 Point river for our yearly pow wow and I already feel like running back to the woods!

Another detail of my mystery picture (@ sig)

(some have probably already figure it out)

Ask the patent office. They will tell you it's something you discover. Ask the AMS. Ask anyone. You don't know what you're talking about, and I guess I was just as willing to let LondonLad make fun of that statement as many times as he liked. The more people saw him do it, the less likely anybody'd believe he knew what he was talking about. Unfortunately, David McGregor spilled the beans.

The point that needs to be learned from this discussion is that nobody in the discussion cared about the point I had originally made about mathematics. It was all an attempt to attack my credibility, that is to say, it was all an ad hominem argument. PDA had said at one point he was interested in what mathematical argument I was trying to make. But it won't get discussed. For the same reason that omooex said he didn't know how I really felt about Afghanistan. It was omooex's comment that I was responding to, and obviously how I really felt is now totally lost in a many-to-one attempt to prove somehow that I either a) don't know mathematics, or b) mathematics is irrelevant, or c) mathematical relevance is determined by the amount of money it makes.

So PDA might wait a long time. Because with you clowns around destroying any discussion I engage in if it doesn't goose step to your von Mises economics, troofer theories of physics, non-interventionist anti-R2P foreign policy, or pro-natalist sociology, it will get drowned out by mindless squawking.

The reason I said there was no invasion of Afghanistan is because that's what the facts say. Invasions require troops, those troops invade. It didn't happen. You people are ridiculing that notion, and don't realize that you are supporting the proposition that 350 people invaded and conquered a country of 30 million. That's not that strange for your group. You also believe in the omnipotence of the CIA, and other grand conspiracy theories. But your loud decibel level precludes actually having a whole lot of discussions, which of course, you'd rather didn't occur. I find you to be an obstacle to free speech. Hardly governing with a gentle hand there, little fish.