Abakcus is not Abacus
Learn how not to learn mathematics on cocoon of goons aka Twitter.
It all began with reading a stupid tweet. There's a cringe account on the platform of losers also known as Twitter. Twitter is where low-IQ losers feel smart, and currently, is run by a man(?) who has trouble speaking properly. I can't remember his name, so I just call him Charlie. Yes, Twitter is run by Charlie. Onward.
There's an account, named „@abakcus“ or whatever. I wasn't aware that such profile even exists. But someone RT-ed a Tweet of theirs and I saw the atrocity. This is the original Tweet, and as you see 1617 innumerate men have already Liked-ed the nonsense. Gentlemen, that's Twitter:
First thing first: it's one of the dumbest thing that I've ever heard. And here's why:
Mathematical objects are abstractions
Mathematical objects are abstractions. They are not real things. They are just in our head. They are different from concrete objects e.g. numerals, which are real things, i.e. the ink on a piece of paper. It's essential to not confuse numbers with numerals. Numbers are abstractions, they are mathematical objects. They're only living in your head. They are not real. But the figures (glyphs, code-points) which are representing numbers on a piece of paper, or having carved out of stone are real: they are called numerals.
Coincidence is only applies to concrete objects
Coincidence is something real, and only applies to concrete objects. Collision in your head is not a coincidence. Coincidence can't be applied to abstract objects such as numbers and ideas. To see a coincidence you need to have something real. Not just a thought. There's no game involved.
Approximately Equal To ≅
It's even getting worse. The idiot behind that account has expressed his dumb idea using the ≅ aka „Approximately Equal To“ symbol which is technically is used to express the concept of congruence, and in some case isomorphism in geometry which I bet he knows nothing about. For example, Congruence as a relation between two right-angled triangles. If you're living outside of the U.S. you are acquainted with terms like SSS, SAS and ASA in Euclidean Geometry. I say outside of the U.S., because presently the primary school curriculums are tuned towards to dumbest of the society. They're producing generations of dummies and if your children are growing in the U.S, they probably don't know what Geometry is, but for sure they know all about DEI, Wokism and all sort of Cultural Marxism.
There are two ways to learn mathematics
At universities or on your own; there's no difference between the two; as long as one has a functioning brain which is a rare asset these days, by the way. The LCD is constant though. What's the Lowest Common Denominator (LCD) between the two? It doesn't matter how to learn mathematics, it's impossible to claim you know mathematics without studying Mathematical Logic. As far as I know in all universities, a mathematics student has to pass Mathematical Logic, one semester at least.
If you're a mathematics student, and there's no trace of mathematical logic in any of your curriculums, then you have a problem. That university is not a university. Maybe it's a branch of Hollywood for low-IQ Leftards. Who knows. Mathematical Logic is essential. And I'm not talking about a graduate school or Ph.D. program. If you're going to get any degree on mathematics you have to know mathematical logic.
The other option, i.e. learning on your own, is also implies you know mathematical logic. Technically, it's impossible to claim that someone likes and knows mathematics, but has never touched the topic of all topics, i.e. Mathematical Logic.
Mathematical Logic is Essential
Six reasons why Mathematical Logic is essential:
- Right away, it'll demonstrate that whether you are high-IQ enough to peruse mathematics or not. It's OK to be dumb, because you can always take a job at Hollywood. Consult with Eric Weinstein for more information!
- Mathematical logic is the bone of mathematics. Statistics is not mathematics. Engineering mathematics like calculus — not to be confused with Analysis, are just tools for engineers, they are not the real deal.
- If you know and are comfortable with Mathematical Logic, then that's a good sign that you can easily switch between different level of abstractions in your brain, and that brain is something which is being formed by biology, i.e. you cannot muscled-up your brain in a gym!
- Mathematical logic is like Classical Logic. It helps you to identify frauds and charlatans on spot. All those concepts and derived concept, rules of inference and hypotheses, and the conclusion, building a structure around operators and operands, they all will help you to developed a sense to spot charlatans. EYE don't know, why but that's the way it is.
- Mathematical logic helps you to be able to distinguish between concrete and abstract objects. It's more helpful than typical classical logic.
- etc.
By the way, I've heard Micheal Shermer was correctly whining about all those nonsense around the theories of everything(Z)! or whatever. He's correct. He's a propagandist but he's correct on this one, this time. And I can't hide the fact that whenever I hear about theory of everything, the first thing that comes to my mind is:
the storyteller charlatan „Eric Weinstein“.
Oi! There are more nonsense …!
I'd skimmed through that account and I found more 1st year students nonsense. Three examples:
„How to show the area of a circle is πr²? Here is a beautiful DIY project for calculus and geometry teachers! “
― Abakcus
Geometry and calculus are not DIY projects. Moreover, there's no such phenomenon as a beautiful mathematics, formula or whatever. The use of adjective „beautiful“ for mathematics is dumb. Mathematics is not beautiful. Mathematics is just mathematics. That's all.
„Yeah, that's true! 13177388 = 7¹+7³+7¹+7⁷+7⁷+7³+7⁸+7⁸“
― Abakcus
That's the properties of number 7 and I've learnt those stuff in primary school; basic stuff, so what?
„Seven of Albert Einstein’s Favorite Books“
― Abakcus
Who cares what's Einstein's opinion on books? By the way, there are two titles on that list, and here's my take on them:
Ethics by Baruch Spinoza
- Benedictus de Spinoza is over-rated. Consult with Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche for further information.
A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume
- Technically, a propaganda book which is the favourite of typical losers, i.e. the herd of Enlightenment and Modernity.
― by BSDDOG