Is math wrong?

[Xannari Ferrows]

The title says it all. Is the math we have now wrong? I bet most of you will say no, and for good reasons: Convincing evidence, rate of usage, influence throughout history, ect.

But back at the history part, think about how much the math we use now has changed over the years. Centuries, and even millennia of reevaluating, refining, and slowly creeping to where it is now. So my question is:

Where will our math be in the future? Will it still be the same as it is right now? Will it have changed much, if not just a little? Perhaps drastically?

And to clear up a potential argument right now; this question does not apply to basic or theoretical math. Obviously addition for example means to add, and ideas of math that do not influence reality cannot technically be false. So, get those out of here.

With that out of the way, it's time to ask.

What we think we know... is it wrong or right?

Is there something in the world, or perhaps universe that we have not accounted for?

Where is it going in the future?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, and try not to be influenced by anyone that may have come before you.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows

[Thomas988]

Really, I don't think there is a "right" way to do math. There may be an entirely different form of math we as humans do not understand that perhaps a civilization elsewhere may use. Maybe there is a another form of math, and maybe it is much more effective than our form, but we simply could not comprehend how it worked. Of course, that it a lot of "maybe's" and a lot of speculation, but I think that's just evidence of how limited our comprehension is and how easily an alien form of thinking could easily be impossible to understand.

Man, this is difficult to explain!

[Xannari Ferrows]

Really, I don't think there is a "right" way to do math. There may be an entirely different form of math we as humans do not understand that perhaps a civilization elsewhere may use. Maybe there is a another form of math, and maybe it is much more effective than our form, but we simply could not comprehend how it worked. Of course, that it a lot of "maybe's" and a lot of speculation, but I think that's just evidence of how limited our comprehension is and how easily an alien form of thinking could easily be impossible to understand.

Man, this is difficult to explain!

It's like trying to explain time travel, eh? ...Idea for next topic has been found.

Either way, very interesting thoughts. Really makes me think... Perhaps it's all the math our mind does, but since we do not understand the brain, we cannot unlock it's secrets. But hey, more speculation over here.

[Thomas988]

It's like trying to explain time travel, eh? ...Idea for next topic has been found.

Either way, very interesting thoughts. Really makes me think... Perhaps it's all the math our mind does, but since we do not understand the brain, we cannot unlock it's secrets. But hey, more speculation over here.

This is little off topic, but if you're interested in math there is this YouTube channel called Numberphile, which talks about everything related to numbers, equations, etc. Really interesting stuff!

[Xannari Ferrows]

This is little off topic, but if you're interested in math there is this YouTube channel called Numberphile, which talks about everything related to numbers, equations, etc. Really interesting stuff!

They're awesome, I know. They're the ones who really got my math drive going, and got me interested in Enigma. Alan Turing was a genius...

[Thomas988]

Anyone else want to chime in on the discussion we have going? C'mon, we have imaginary cookies!

[magico13]

Math is one of those fields (possibly the only one) where once something is proven you can't really go back and say that it's wrong (unless they made a mistake, which will eventually be caught I suppose, but that's not frequent I imagine). You can find different ways to prove it and you can expand on it, but it's not like general science where you make lots of assumptions to fit data that might be incorrect. So no, I don't believe math is wrong.

[Xannari Ferrows]

I'm one to say that Math itself is conceptual. Just as we filter the real world through our minds, we try to understand what is filtered by creating a system of comprehension in order to explain it, whatever it is. Some things we can explain with emotion, or words, but for the mechanics of our world, we use math.

Perhaps the real world works far different from how we think, but our knowledge has allowed us to understand our world and universe on the only level we know how to.

[Thomas988]

Just as we filter the real world through our minds, we try to understand what is filtered by creating a system of comprehension in order to explain it, whatever it is. Some things we can explain with emotion, or words, but for the mechanics of our world, we use math.

Strangely enough, the first thing that popped into my head when I read this line was music. Think about it: music is very much like math in the sense that both are incredibly difficult to explain. Music is just organized sounds that somehow play with our emotions, while math is just a bunch of symbols that magically interpret and predict the universe. How do they do it? No one knows!

Excuse me, I just blew my own mind.

[Albert VDS]

11 apples are still 11 apples, unless you use duodecimal, then it's ÆÂ.

[ZetaX]

Math is one of those fields (possibly the only one) where once something is proven you can't really go back and say that it's wrong.

It goes even further: it was not wrong in the first place. Claiming something mathematical is wrong requires exactly the same type of rigid evidence (a "proof") as if claiming it is correct.

[Brotoro]

Math only needs to be self consistent to be correct. If it happens that a particular subset of your mathematics works for calculating the behavior of the universe, then I as a Physicist would also find it useful, and would consider it 'right' until proven otherwise.

[Linear]

Maths is a means to an end.

[Greenfire32]

I gave up math shortly around the "never going to use it" period of my life.

Guess what? I still don't use it.

Therefore, all math is wrong. XD

/micdrop

[magnemoe]

Math is one of those fields (possibly the only one) where once something is proven you can't really go back and say that it's wrong (unless they made a mistake, which will eventually be caught I suppose, but that's not frequent I imagine). You can find different ways to prove it and you can expand on it, but it's not like general science where you make lots of assumptions to fit data that might be incorrect. So no, I don't believe math is wrong.

True, in other sciences like astronomy you get better data all the time, you also have to make guesses based on the few data you have.

This is true in more fields than you believe, history has changed a lot because of archaeological findings.

[GluttonyReaper]

Depends what you mean by "wrong".

I think it would be ... arrogant of us to assume what we have created something which is perfectly true in an absolute sense. What we could say is that it is consistent with itself logically - but even then, it's worth considering that this logic, as far as we can tell, only exists in our heads.

[RainDreamer]

Math is a language of logic. You can't say a language is wrong. It is just a representation of ideas, a way to communicate them, a method of realizing the abstract into a more comprehensible form. You can use it wrong, of course. But it is not inherently "wrong" per se.

[ZetaX]

Math is a language of logic. You can't say a language is wrong. It is just a representation of ideas, a way to communicate them, a method of realizing the abstract into a more comprehensible form. You can use it wrong, of course. But it is not inherently "wrong" per se.

While I would agree with the other things you said, I would not call mathematics a language. It is more than only a way to phrase things: a collection of ideas, concepts and logical conclusions.

An example of a difference: part of mathematics is "asking the right questions"; we are not simply interested in random implications, but it is an inherent part of mathematics what we actually seek an answer for.

[wasmic]

I do not know of any mathematical equation that, once proven, was later disproven. The Pythagorean Theorem is still considered correct 2500 years later. That's the thing about math: you can definitively prove concepts, something that can't be done in any other branch of science. Thus, while our mathematics and understanding of it might be incomplete, I find it very improbable that any of it could, in the future, be found to be wrong.

[ZetaX]

I do not know of any mathematical equation that, once proven, was later disproven.

Mathematics is not about equations. You want to talk about theorem there.

And there were so many wrong proofs in the history of mathematics. Sure, most don't get published, but that doesn't make them nonexistent. So mathematics itself is not wrong, but our knowledge or understanding (the false proof) can be.

As an actual published example: Grunwald's "theorem".

Short version if you know some math: Let a be an integer. If x^m = a mod b has a solution for every positive integer b, then a is an m-th power of an integer.

Longer and slightly sloppy version assuming less knowledge: Take a whole number (whole number means nothing after the period; an integer), call it a. Assume that the number a, if written in any base b, ends in a digit that also occurs as the last digit of an m-th power of some whole number. Then a is already an m-th power of some whole number.

Counterexample: a=16, m=8. But the theorem is correct if m is not a multiple of 8. A "proof" of the wrong version was first given by Grunwald in 1933, and later another one was "found" by Whaples in 1942. Only in 1948 the "theorem" was found to be wrong by Wang.

The Pythagorean Theorem is still considered correct 2500 years later.

One should add that the original "proof" was not rigid and essentially amounts to physics, i.e. seeing that it is correct in the universe (happily, no one back then knew relativity).

[Niemand303]

Xannari, math can't be wrong or right, since it's a language to describe nature.

[Kerbart]

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this. How could math be wrong? Can you give an example of something (that we know is right, but for arguments sake let's assume it's not) that is wrong?

Would you mean something elemental like 3 + 4 = 7?

Or something a bit more advanced like f(x) = 2x³ + 5x² -3x + 5; f'(x) = 6x² + 10x - 3?

Or do you mean something like the Poincaré conjecture? (Which, being a conjecture, is something mathematicians do not have proof for, but assume it's true)

Math is the only science where "hard proof" is really, really, really hard proof. Not as in "beyond reasonable doubt" but as in "without doubt". So I have a hard time imagining it would be wrong.

[Xannari Ferrows]

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this. How could math be wrong? Can you give an example of something (that we know is right, but for arguments sake let's assume it's not) that is wrong?

Would you mean something elemental like 3 + 4 = 7?

Or something a bit more advanced like f(x) = 2x³ + 5x² -3x + 5; f'(x) = 6x² + 10x - 3?

Or do you mean something like the Poincaré conjecture? (Which, being a conjecture, is something mathematicians do not have proof for, but assume it's true)

Math is the only science where "hard proof" is really, really, really hard proof. Not as in "beyond reasonable doubt" but as in "without doubt". So I have a hard time imagining it would be wrong.

That's the issue. Trying to explain mathematics in the sense of operation within the unfiltered world would be like trying to create a new word that makes absolutely no sense, or perhaps trying to pro-n-ounce a word through a noise we cannot make. I can't say the math we know is wrong, but it is beyond me, and everyone's understanding since we are forced to adhere to what our brain tells us.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows

[ZetaX]

Or do you mean something like the Poincaré conjecture? (Which, being a conjecture, is something mathematicians do not have proof for, but assume it's true)

The Poincare conjecture has already been proven several years ago by Perelman. And we do not "assume it's true" but aim to prove it; different thing.

[Danny88]

That's kind of a philosophical take on mathematics. I believe math, as we understand it now, is universal.