Mathematics -Invented or discovered?

Watch
username1533709
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Had a debate with my chemistry teacher about this.I myself believe maths is discovered, but he believes maths invented.My maths teacher agrees with me?
What do you guys think? Do you believe maths is discovered or invented?
0
reply
Chucklevisionary
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
I believe its invented, its just a way we attempt to understand what we observe around us through maths. Its a good subject for debate though.
0
reply
username1533709
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by Chucklevisionary)
I believe its invented, its just a way we attempt to understand what we observe around us through maths. Its a good subject for debate though.


Posted from TSR Mobile
What about the fact different countries have rediscovered the same mathematics, pythagoras for example? To me mathematics have always existed, not to mention maths is always certain unlike science once the theorem is proved.
0
reply
username1533709
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by Chucklevisionary)
I believe its invented, its just a way we attempt to understand what we observe around us through maths. Its a good subject for debate though.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I know.Surprised no one on tsr ever debates this.It's always just threads on religion, race blah blah.Never any good stuff like this.
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by Kadak)
Had a debate with my chemistry teacher about this.I myself believe maths is discovered, but he believes maths invented.My maths teacher agrees with me?
What do you guys think? Do you believe maths is discovered or invented?
Wrong forum. This goes in the Philosophy forum.

This is actually a topic within the Philosophy of Mathematics more especifically the ontology of Mathematics. Some people call platonists believe that maths exist independently of our human brains while some believe that it is just a human tool to understand the world.
0
reply
username1533709
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Juichiro)
Wrong forum. This goes in the Philosophy forum.

This is actually a topic within the Philosophy of Mathematics more especifically the ontology of Mathematics. Some people call platonists believe that maths exist independently of our human brains while some believe that it is just a human tool to understand the world.
Yeah, I'm a platonist. If possible, can you ask a mod to move thia please? Anyone are you a platonist?
0
reply
username1533709
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Kadak)
Yeah, I'm a platonist. If possible, can you ask a mod to move thia please? Anyway are you a platonist?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Mr M
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Kadak)
[Surprised no one on tsr ever debates this.
If only that were true.
0
reply
Mr M
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2159948
0
reply
username1533709
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Mr M)
If only that were true.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I've never seen any other threads on it though.
0
reply
Mr M
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1781837
0
reply
Mr M
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2440167

and so on ...
0
reply
EllainKahlo
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
I think it's both. Some things can't be changed and are solid facts - the discovered aspects. Other things we seem to have placed together because they make sense - invented.
0
reply
CancerousProblem
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
Math in a nutshell is deriving things that you know must exists from a set of given Axioms; and these Axioms we set by observing the real world. Without axioms, you can't prove even the most basic seeming things like 1+1=2. You start with basically obvious, common sense, like things that we get by observing the real world; axioms of addition like a+b = b+a we intuitively learned about, we learned about addition and subtraction by the notion of moving objects into and from sets, then multiplication as simply repeated addition, and division the opposite of multiplication.

Why do we say parallel lines exist in Geometry? Actually we can't, but it is an axiom. Something so obvious, but thousands of years ago, when Euclid wrote the Elements, he struggled to prove that parallel lines existed; and in the end, just included that as an axiom of geometry. Why such an axiom? Because it is useful for us, since it is similar to a lot of the universe around us, it is a model for flat surfaces.
But if you were trying to add degrees in a triangle that you derived from these parallel line axioms that can only exist on a flat surface, while your triangle was on say, a spherical surface, your result wouldn't actually be a model for the real world. The angles actually may not add up to 180 degrees!

Just my two cents.

Give a Mathematician a truth, and he will derive from it another truth that you must also give him, and from that another, and another.
1
reply
Noble.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
I've always found it a bit of an odd question, because really is it both, and it's pretty easy to get caught up in the definitions of 'invented' and 'discovered'. It's perfectly arguable that axioms are invented, and then everything from then on is a 'discovery' from those axioms.

But then you encounter issues where axioms have been defined just so that a certain 'discovery' becomes true, so the whole idea of maths being either discovered or invented is pretty flawed, in my opinion, if not a pointless debate
1
reply
username1533709
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#16


Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm a newbie to tsr so I wasn't there when those threads were made.
0
reply
username1533709
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by CancerousProblem)
Math in a nutshell is deriving things that you know must exists from a set of given Axioms; and these Axioms we set by observing the real world. Without axioms, you can't prove even the most basic seeming things like 1+1=2. You start with basically obvious, common sense, like things that we get by observing the real world; axioms of addition like a+b = b+a we intuitively learned about, we learned about addition and subtraction by the notion of moving objects into and from sets, then multiplication as simply repeated addition, and division the opposite of multiplication.

Why do we say parallel lines exist in Geometry? Actually we can't, but it is an axiom. Something so obvious, but thousands of years ago, when Euclid wrote the Elements, he struggled to prove that parallel lines existed; and in the end, just included that as an axiom of geometry. Why such an axiom? Because it is useful for us, since it is similar to a lot of the universe around us, it is a model for flat surfaces.
But if you were trying to add degrees in a triangle that you derived from these parallel line axioms that can only exist on a flat surface, while your triangle was on say, a spherical surface, your result wouldn't actually be a model for the real world. The angles actually may not add up to 180 degrees!

Just my two cents.

Give a Mathematician a truth, and he will derive from it another truth that you must also give him, and from that another, and another.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Ah yes I heard that in maths a and b is not the same as b and a, and we are learning alot more about what ( and) means.
Is this why Betrand Russell went to such trouble, 360 pages of it, to prove 1+1=2?
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by EllainKahlo)
I think it's both. Some things can't be changed and are solid facts - the discovered aspects. Other things we seem to have placed together because they make sense - invented.
Well all facts have a big if preceeding them so not sure I would call them solid. Plus whatever we have placed together because it makes sense also qualifies as a fact. To put it in another way, I would argue that maths is not empirical. Conclusion: I don't consider maths a science.
0
reply
username1533709
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Juichiro)
Well all facts have a big if preceeding them so not sure I would call them solid. Plus whatever we have placed together because it makes sense also qualifies as a fact. To put it in another way, I would argue that maths is not empirical. Conclusion: I don't consider maths a science.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Maths isn't a science because maths relies on proof, not experiments.But maths is far more accurate than science since unlike science, once something in maths is proved, it is always certain.
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Kadak)
Posted from TSR Mobile

Ah yes I heard that in maths a and b is not the same as b and a, and we are learning alot more about what ( and) means.
Is this why Betrand Russell went to such trouble, 360 pages of it, to prove 1+1=2?
Principia Mathematica? That was supposed to the culmination of a dream where the kingdom of Mathlands was ruled by Lord Logic. But a brave paranoid warrior called Kurt entered this dream and destroyed from within. Russell never recovered from that.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should the school day be extended to help students catch up?

Yes (24)
30%
No (56)
70%

Watched Threads

View All