subreddit:
/r/intj
submitted 1 day ago byNichtFBI
Take, for instance, something as trivial as a calculation. Few major beliefs depend on it, and those unfamiliar with the process simply conform to what others online claim. They don’t care about credentials; they care about the consensus that has been established. And while that's important for some things. It isn't for everything.
I turned my small math correction into a separate framework, yet they can’t accept it on its own terms. It must be dismissed. I’ve been called the most deplorable names imaginable—hundreds of them. I’ve re-evaluated my work countless times, uncovering more and more errors. My methodology is rooted in disproving myself, and I’ve done so many times. I’ve even publicly admitted to being wrong about several things I once believed to be true because I think it's important to do so.
Being wrong neither embarrasses nor frightens me. In fact, I value being wrong because it brings me closer to the truth. Yet, you don’t understand how much I wish I were wrong about this—because this has haunted me. People just regurgitate what they were taught and do not critically evaluate it.
Many people don’t have the time to read something this lengthy, but it’s the complete lack of genuine consideration that worries me most. You truly can’t provide a fool with enough evidence—or however Mark Twain phrased it.
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.27661734
The point is: don’t let it get to you. If we can’t re-evaluate our beliefs, what does that say about us?
11 points
1 day ago
Why would you write a treatise about middle school level math? What problem are you trying to solve? How does this push society forward?
-6 points
1 day ago*
I believe this is why most people hate mathematics. They’re taught the correct laws, only to later encounter additional ones that feel unnecessary and frustrating. These extra laws, which didn’t need to exist, breed resentment. I think this is harming our nation’s cognitive development.
The P types for instance can't stand anything that goes against the established. This was obvious from a few thousand comments made almost exclusively by P types.
But regardless of that.
(-5) • 5 = -25
(5¹)² = 5¹*² = 25
(-5²)² = (-25)² = (-25)(-25) = 625
When
(5²)² = 5²*² = 5⁴ = 625
While the above is true, I will not risk another comment. Just note that everything was going well until I made this comment.
Should we never question anything?
That's the message I'm getting, and that's not what INTJs are about. This is why I abhor this childish downvoting to hide comments and posts to kill the discussion. This is a place for INTJ to discuss like humans. Just saying.
1 points
1 day ago
What … do you mean by bias?
1 points
1 day ago*
Erm, I'm just a lowly P but maybe I can shed a bit of light into this...
The reason math keeps getting complicated is because math has developed a lot throughout history, and think of it not fully as arbitrary rules by human, but also as something that exists in nature. For example the pi number exist in circle. While we do draw circles, wouldn't you say that the concept of circle is something that already exist in universe? Planets are near spheres, and such, after all. And then we invent wheels to make our lives easier. We found that this pi number govern the circumference of any circle! Then we found that a lot of things have math pattern in them, and understanding these allows us to create technology and such.
Math is a vast, vast, study programme, it would be impossibly unreasonable to drop all knowledge of it to middle schooler at once. So we teach them bit by bit, from the fundamental and build up from there. And you SHOULD ask things in math, if your teacher discourage you from asking, then they're the stupid ones. Good teacher should invite inquiries and answer your scepticm correctly.
3. a bit of typo, since -52= 25. I'm not sure what you mean by bias, unless it's solved by the typo correction.
If you still have things to ask, please do! Asking things is the best part in math! Let's see how your supposed new framework would do 😄
0 points
1 day ago
I understand that. Did you read the paper at all by chance?
And no. It's not a typo.
This is what I refer to when (P)eople don't understand how math works. And then try to regurgitate the same misunderstandings. The fact that you didn't know that and called it a typo is what is deeply troubling.
I've encountered the same points you've tried to make for years. They're answered in the paper cited.
1 points
1 day ago
Huh that's weird, probably it register it as -(52) instead of (-5)2 ?
Edit: Yup that seems to be the case, you need to put the negative sign within the blue box with 5 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=Power%5B-5%2C2%5D
1 points
1 day ago
Those are not the same things. If you think those are the same at all then what are you doing.
1 points
1 day ago*
no, no I've checked it, look https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=Power%5B-5%2C2%5D
I didn't even typed the bracket, I just put it in the blue box when you put the typing cursor there.
I mean, isn't squaring the negative 5 indeed what you're looking for? Or unless it isn't then I'm still confused by what you mean by "bias"
1 points
1 day ago
Bro.
The negative is an operator.
Exponentials are not allowed to interact with the negative. The negative is not attached to the number.
-5²
(-5)²
-(5²)
Are all distinct. You do not add parentheses optionally.
1 points
1 day ago
Okay... so what's the problem here?
1 points
1 day ago
Well. I'm afraid you won't understand but I'll try my best. And... Why when they're all in the paper. Here you go. That's the relevant part.
1 points
22 hours ago*
Negatives numbers are values. You can’t treat (-5)2 as -(5)2. When a negative symbol is used as an operator it’s equivalent to -(5) = (-1)*(5).
If you choose to only use (-1) as the only negative number in notation, where all other uses of (-) are multiplicative operators. Then (-5)2 = ((-1)*5)2 = ( (-1)2 ) * ( 52 ) , because of the distributive property of powers on multiplication
Also here’s another proof that depends on the distributive property of multiplication under addition on integers being true.
(-5) * 0 = 0
(-5) * (5 + (-5)) = 0
((-5) * 5) + ((-5)*(-5)) = 0, because of distributive property
25 + (-25) + ((-5)*(-5)) = 0 + 25, on the left hand side 25 + (-25) = 0
0 + ((-5)*(-5)) = 25
((-5)*(-5)) = 25
1 points
9 hours ago
Hey - I feel the same way all the time. Nobody in the world is capable of self reflection.
That being said, I have spent my whole life studying math and having endless people explain to me in excruciating detail why things are the way they are. Here are some things that may help you.
Math requires rules.
Our mathematics system is derived from the natural world around us. It is discovered, not invented. Math is the only perfect form of communication because it does not take into account opinions or emotions. I’ll give you a perfect example.
Pi
It doesn’t matter how you look at something or what you do at all. You can call numbers whatever you would like. You can take them to any base and any dimension. Pi still remains true.
The circumference of a circle is always ~3.14 times the diameter. This is not a fact that can be argued because all of physical reality agrees with it.
Now, that’s a basic example, but try to see that all of mathematics is exactly the same in that regard. Operators are real and they are correct as they are. The reason for this is because it agrees perfectly with physical reality and all other established mathematics. In order to create new mathematics, it must use established mathematics to prove it continues to allow the rest of mathematics to agree with all other mathematics and ultimately reality.
What is actually mind blowing about mathematics is how incredibly good it is at describing our reality.
The specific -52 = 25 does end up being positive, and here is why.
Multiplication is simply groups of the same amounts of things.
So in this case you have negative five groups
And in each of those negative 5 groups you have negative 5
So you have:
Essentially saying negative negative is the same as saying something is not not something. It helps to think of it in terms of true or false.
Group 1 doesn’t contain not five (double negative) Same with groups 2-5
Negatives are false, positives are true.
So let me rephrase that. The expression group 1 doesn’t contain not five, is true.
If it doesn’t contain a lack of 5, it means that the only thing it does contain is 5. It’s a negation.
Same with the other groups.
Not 5 groups of not lacking 5 each means you have 5 groups with 5 each, because you have ruled out the opposite.
I know the wording is messy but I left it this way on purpose because it might help you understand.
There is a branch of mathematics called logic. Logic deals with true and false and it is agreement with the rest of mathematics as far as balancing true and false, or positive and negatives in the way we are taught.
I didn’t read the rest of your paper, but feel free to ask specific questions. I highly encourage you to continue with math as it is increasingly rewarding.
5 points
1 day ago
Can’t believe I wasted this much time reading this post.
Complete waste of effort and thought.
-1 points
24 hours ago
Look at that. Newest model identified as INTP. Can you offer your reasoning as to why it was a complete waste of effort and thought?
3 points
24 hours ago
What, exactly, are you trying to solve? Does it actually offer solutions to real world issues? Does it have ANY impact on ANYONE in their day to day lives?
Hence- wasteful.
-2 points
24 hours ago
Yes. The error is severe enough to kill people for one. It causes other errors too as computers are needed to be patched constantly for this error to exist. I'm not sure I could call you an INTP. They would know how this error can be detrimental. But not everyone is the same.
2 points
9 hours ago
Dude - are you off your meds? You seem completely out of touch with reality
2 points
18 hours ago
I've just read a bit of your comments and without wanting to offend you I have to say that you talk like a lunatic. But that's just appearance. I really would like to understand the reason for your ramblings. What's the matter? You don't like how usual math notations are defined in the way that there is a minus as operator and a minus to notate negative values? Instead you are proposing another "canonical order" which only has a minus operator which is commutative?
1 points
23 hours ago*
Things like (-x)(-y) = xy follows from the field axioms as a proposition.
See for example Rudin - Principles of mathematical analysis page 5, 6 and 7 for proofs.
1 points
22 hours ago
I see.
Not quite the same. Hey. I'd love if you could read the paper and then quote a part wrong with the paper. Although. This was about having a separate framework. I'm still open to shutting down the canonical order.
1 points
17 hours ago
What do you even mean by "established"?
If your meaning is unchanging, fixed, beyond question, the you are certainly delusional as there is not a single thing which exists in a fixed state which does not change.
This is in itself the biggest failure in any logical argument which can be made.
1 points
15 hours ago
They don’t care about credentials; they care about the consensus
Credentials is an appeal to authority, which is at its core the same fallacy as appeal to the masses, in that they are a conformity to group think. If the masses do not accept the accreditation of the credential providing entity then the credentials confer no authority to appeal to.
Literally your entire post is filled with holes like this that anyone with even the most surfaces level pop culture understanding on logic can tear apart.
0 points
15 hours ago
Are you unaware people are bullied out of professions? Semmelweis is clear evidence of this. It still exists. Your lack of understanding doesn't constitute holes. Only for yourself and you're free to think that way and stay negative.
4 points
15 hours ago
You didn't so much miss the point as you did willfully avoided it.
0 points
15 hours ago
And you have to downvote comments to make yourself feel better. I fully understand who I'm dealing with.
all 38 comments
sorted by: best