What if a new type of Math could generate new chaotics one?

[frigid sable]

what if there was a math that could generate self-destructive math, self-collapsing math, chaotic math, random probability math that don't connect themselves or even a math that self creates itself and a twin like x and x'?

[quiet geode]

what in the world are you talking about

[granite jay]

He is crazy

Leave him

I encountered him before doing crazy shit

[lyric marsh]

self-dectructive and collapsing? What do you mean by that??

[brave mason]

sounds like my thoughts

self destructive and collapsing

[frigid sable]

Self collapsing: repeat itself
Self destructive: that will finish to destroy itself with rules that are falsifying themselves

Meta-math by the way it is hard to think that deep

[frigid sable]

Lol 🤣

[ivory onyx]

[frigid sable]

Don't worry these are questions that pop in my mind in seconds this is annoying

[ivory onyx]

"this is annoying"

[frigid sable]

?

[ivory onyx]

what do you mean when you say "this is annoying"

[frigid sable]

I have too many questions like this in meta-math and beyond that pop in my head every night but don't have the answer

[ivory onyx]

please try to be more specific with your questions so we can help you

[frigid sable]

Idk my self that is the annoying part

Like:

What if math could create objects like an apple, and find the rule of it to see how it evolved in real life?

[quiet geode]

https://tenor.com/view/breaking-bad-funny-wtf-wth-jesse-gif-17336046

[ivory onyx]

i dont think the mathematics discord server help forum/channels is the best place to talk about this

#math-discussion

[frigid sable]

I don't have access because of questions like that and people said I was shit posting

[ivory onyx]

...

[frigid sable]

Yeah ...

So I'm kinda stuck in a loop

[quiet geode]

damn i wonder why

[ivory onyx]

maybe the people arent completely wrong

have you considered that

because how do you expect us to answer your questions

[frigid sable]

No I expect to maybe have help to convince me this could be possible or impossible

[ivory onyx]

your question is way too vague.

[frigid sable]

Ik and that is the problem right now with meta-math this is really abstract when you ask meta-math questions

[ivory onyx]

exactly

so no one can help you well

also i have no idea what you mean by meta math

[frigid sable]

I know it's not my fault too it's hard to understand meta-math

[frigid sable]

Math about math

[ivory onyx]

you cant be more vague than that my man

im leaving good luck finding a helper

(non sarcastic)

[frigid sable]

That is literally what meta-math means by the way

[frigid sable]

But ty thought it gonna be really hard but yes I should check forum on meta-math

[granite jay]

Don't reply to him he is just fooling around... I reported him to the moderators last time n they didn't do shit

[granite jay]

You are

[granite jay]

Don't i told you

[quiet geode]

it’s ok

[granite jay]

😅

[ivory onyx]

I do not believe in ignoring people rather than teaching them the correct ways to use this server.

Please be respectful to the users of this server

[granite jay]

U think u taught him SMTH?

I alr wasted my time last Convo i had with this guy

So if u still think u can help him n wanna play along with his tricks

May God help u both

[granite jay]

I am

U didn't have to say this

But u did bcz u wanted to seem like an epitome of moral values

[ivory onyx]

Trust me; I am definetly not one

[ivory onyx]

Please keep convo in this channel related to his question. If you continue, I might ping the moderators.

[granite jay]

No comments

[ivory onyx]

[frigid sable]

Wth do you mean fooling when this is a question I asked myself?

[frigid sable]

Anyway let's just keep people like that away

[glossy thunder]

I didn't really understand, wdym 'new type of math'? Is classical mathematics not enough?

[frigid sable]

No what I mean is there could be a full universe of math

[glossy thunder]

Platonic universe?

[frigid sable]

Can you detail the word "platonic"a bit

[glossy thunder]

There is (or was, idk) a view that all of mathematics exist in a universe and we keep discovering new things, concepts that are new to us, but they already existed in that universe

[frigid sable]

Yes that kinda the type of what I thought

The first theory I made could enter in that (it was first to structurized math, but everyone told me I was crazy, even if this don't work in normal math, this could be a new math universe that is fractal (connected and that each branches has the same amount of branch))

[glossy thunder]

Ok, but where does the chaos enter this new universe of math. Or are you saying that if it exists, what if it's inconsistent?

[frigid sable]

Everything enters the new universe of math even if the rules break the structure

[glossy thunder]

So, according to you chaos is an inevitable part of math (or am I interpreting this wrong)?

[frigid sable]

No this is actually pretty Valid if there's a math universe that have infinite math possible

[glossy thunder]

Hmmmmm

Though, I think that mathematics shouldn't be inconsistent

[frigid sable]

No but there might be an inconsistent math universe

You're getting the point more?

[glossy thunder]

Yeah, I get the point (a universe of all math correct and incorrect), but I don't really side with it

[frigid sable]

Wdym by you don't really side with

[glossy thunder]

I just don't believe in such universe

Maybe it does exist, but not to me

[frigid sable]

I see your point this is kinda hard to think at a meta-math abstraction

[glossy thunder]

That universe is invisible to us in every way so it is just our mental construction

[frigid sable]

Wdym

[glossy thunder]

How do you actually know it exists, any actual proof?

[frigid sable]

Proof don't need to exist in question

[glossy thunder]

Even if it exists, there's no way to prove it

[frigid sable]

Not yet

[glossy thunder]

There might be in the future, but rn - nothing

In short, your view is something like Platonism

[modest hearth]

I mean, we could make it exist by just defining it

We're math amateurs after all

"Let Omega denote the set of all mathematical systems" and whatnot

A mathematical system could be defined as a set of symbols that come together into strings called "statements", along with a grammar (set of rules for how these symbols are allowed to come together into statements, or set of statements. there's a branch of mathematics for studying grammars and language that is relevant here but I forgot the name), a set of axioms (a set of statements), and a set of rules for how to get a statement from other statements

Like a more generalized form of natural deduction, essentially

[modest hearth]

Yes

I thought of it

physical objects need some kind of empirical evidence for us to be able to claim that they exist

concepts need only that we be able to think of them

I know that the number 2 exists

because I can think of it

Well, "existence" doesn't have one specific definition, so I am free to give my own as long as it fits the general idea

And I'd like to define it in such a way that it works like that

since that's much more useful than anything else

[glossy thunder]

I'm pretty sure you are referring to formalism, which is also my favorite out of the big three

And if we're talking in that sense, formalism is all about mathematics being the science of formal systems

The systems, however, have to meet some criteria in order to be acceptable

The ones that I'm aware of are 1. Intuitive evidence (which we, let's say, have, because we defined the universe), 2. Consistency (which we cannot achieve since the universe contains math that is wrong alongside the correct math) and 3. Usefulness (which I can not find)

[modest hearth]

I personally wouldn't use any of these for a definition

[glossy thunder]

We may define it in another kind of logic, this is just the formalist view

And as I've mentioned, the concept of this universe is very close to platonism

@modest hearth

[tribal lagoon]

Domantas, you may want to look through OP's chat history.

(if you have not done so already)

[glossy thunder]

Sure

[glossy thunder]

What should I have found, I don't get it?

[tribal lagoon]

the other things OP has posted/talked about.

specifically in the last post OP made.
that may help you understand what OP is talking about, or at least the kind of things OP means to talk about.

or, you can directly narrow your search to those messages he sent with a link attached.

[glossy thunder]

I took a look at some of it and my opinion did not change about anything

[tribal lagoon]

fair enough, just a heads-up

[granite jay]

Read some work of ppl

Like S. Ramanujan

[violet zinc]

Go to a philosophy server or something

[violet zinc]

there are statements that you can't prove nor disprove -> Godel's theorem about incompleteness

[quiet geode]

i’m not sure a philosophy server would appreciate this

[lyric marsh]

That makes more sense. There's a lot of things in our current mathematics that has repeating stuff tho? Like in functions, fractions and a lot of things involving circles.

For self destructive, I am not sure what you're talking about, it would be better if you used formal mathematical keywords.

[frigid sable]

Something that is true but his own rules make it false

[plucky horizon]

[signal creek]

This concept already exists; it's called CONTRADICTION.

In a system, we devise a set of axioms that are minimally required for proving concepts.
Specifically, we denote by "an axiomatic system" a set of formal statements, i.e. axioms, that are assumed in the framework to be true a priori.
The famous example you should be familiar with is Euclid of Alexandria's Five Postulates, which form the basis of Euclidean geometry. A more recent well-known axiomatic system is ZF for modern-day set theory.

Further, a theory is a collection of such sentences that can be formed from such an axiomatic system (technically the definitions are reversed, but this is enough for the concept here).

The point is, we generally intend for such a theory T to be consistent, meaning that it does not lead to logical contradictions; that is, if sentence A is true in T, then its own negation ¬A must NOT BE TRUE in T as well. Should such a sentence A exist (i.e. such that A and ¬A are both true in the theory), then we revise the theory in the first instance. This is basically the grounds of all of modern mathematics - we try and avoid contradiction like this in the first place.

You typically don't see this subject until at least L3 [i.e. undergraduate third year] in France, suffice it to say it's not an easy subject to grasp immediately, and I'm not expected it to be grasped immediately just from what I've written.

[ivory onyx]

[frigid sable]

Thank you for the answer to my question 😁

[tribal lagoon]

damn, bolded and underlined

[tribal lagoon]

though maybe piggybacking off this: axiomatic systems and proof theory is that late in uni?

[signal creek]

Formal logic is

[tribal lagoon]

ah

[signal creek]

Learning about axioms and proofs is pretty early

ideally pre-uni in fact

[tribal lagoon]

I would have thought that logic was one of the earlier topics because you're gonna need them for proofs

[signal creek]

But learning about first-order propositional logic, that was a third-year course for me for instance

[tribal lagoon]

but good to know

thanks for answering my aside anyway, and I shall bow out of here

[modest hearth]

"Go to a math server or something"

[modest hearth]

It's weird how your own description doesn't match with what you ultimately told me

You're not exactly describing contradiction here

In my DMs too you described it as if there's some kind of concept of "truth" in math that goes beyond semantic truth

[frigid sable]

Isnt this what I said?