this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
1249 points (98.6% liked)

memes

15642 readers
3193 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 week ago (25 children)

But math does change, and it has a lot in the last 1000 years.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 week ago (16 children)

Math doesn't change, we just learn more about it.

The mathematical knowledge we had thousands of years ago is still true, and it always will be.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 week ago (14 children)

Math doesn't change, we just learn more about it.

Isn't that true of almost all the sciences?

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 week ago (4 children)

The difference is that if something is proven mathematically it's 100% certain and will not change. In other sciences you may be taught things that later turn out to be flat out wrong.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Bingo, I was taught in genetics class in the 1990s that RNA played a role but DNA was the primary driver and now my understanding is the current consensus is RNA is the primary driver.

[–] Viking_Hippie 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

When I was growing up, Minnie was the primary Driver, but now the consensus says that it's Adam.

[–] HellieSkellie 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not here to start shit, genuinely curious what people think about Gödel's incompleteness theorems in relation to us being able to "know" math

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

Not a mathematician but the way I understand it, is that it merely shows that there are unprovable problems, not that nothing can be proven.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Not if it's later shown that your set of axioms lead to a contradiction.

In that case have fun re-proofing everything with new axioms.

[–] Viking_Hippie 1 points 1 week ago

Sounds hella sus now that you mention it 🤔

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)