Ask Lemmy

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.

1 should be a prime number.

Mixed numbers fraction syntax [1] is the dumbest funking thing ever. Juxtaposition of a number in front of any expression implies multiplication! Addition? Fucking addition? What the fuck is wrong with you?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction#Mixed_numbers

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

Interesting. Why?

Everyone keeps talking about pi r²

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

The exceptions including the number 1. Like it not being a prime number, or being 1 the result of any number to the 0 power. Or 0! equals 1.

I know 1 is a very special number, and I know these things are demonstrable, but something always feels off to me with these rules that include 1.

“Terryology may have some merits and deserves consideration.”

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

I don’t think ‘I don’t believe in the axiom of choice’ is an opinion, it’s kind of a weird statement to make because the axiom exists. You can have an opinion on whether mathematicians should use it given the fact that it’s an unprovable statement, but that’s true for all axioms.

Any math that needs the axiom of choice has no real life application so I do think it’s kind of silly that so much research is done on math that uses it. At that point mathematics basically becomes art but it’s art that’s only understood by some mathematicians so its value is debatable in my opinion. <- I suppose that opinion is controversial among mathematicians.

Some of the more complex proofs might be wrong just because so few understand them, and the ones who do might have made mistakes.

Hell, I’ll trust a math result much more if it’s backed up by empirical evidence from eg. engineering or physics.

Don’t know if that counts as being ”in math” by OPs definition.

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.

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

P vs NP can be solved, and is within P. Good luck proving it though, I'm not smart enough

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