Which subject is more important: mathematics or language?

Here, a smart person in my place would have stayed silent... but who said I'm smart:smile04:

Someone has been rambling here.

I think it's impossible to engage in pointless chatter in the "offtopic" section:smile03:, although it's quite possible to go off-topic.

And there's no need to start an argument if the goal is to prove the correctness of not your own version, but both. What's the point of the discussion then? Huh?

But I didn't start it; I just expressed my "smart" opinion. What's the point of the discussion? I think it's self-expression;)

That's why I'd ask you not to pretend to be smart.

Well, I can't help but react to that - :smile40:

The participant in the argument takes on an absurd and comical appearance in the process.

Are you more concerned about the appearance I'm taking on? I'm flattered, but I rarely care about such trivial things as public opinion - it's very ephemeral and easily changeable:rolleyes: of course, there are always exceptions.

And then, here's my last post. It comments on the opponent's thought and is supplemented by my statements. And? Is there anything to say about this?

I'll quote a piece of your last post below with constructive criticism and comments::smile40:

Now I understand what the notorious hot-headedness is all about. It's in stubbornness... By the way, it's very convenient to call the opponent's arguments stupid and accuse him of not understanding the subject matter if you yourself have nothing to say. It's a good method. It immediately discourages the opponent from any desire to continue an idiotic argument on the verge of absurdity.

No comment.

The future belongs to science. To the exact sciences, baby. All new and new inventions and modifications of old ones.

Or to nuclear winter, or to philosophy... In general, you can live in different ways. But I'm afraid that no exact science will be able to explain to you why people cry when they read Simonov, why children like Pushkin's fairy tales, why live at all...

I'm talking about mathematics in general - there are numbers everywhere, there are always at least basic counting skills needed, everything is organized and arranged on shelves in alphabetical order, there are subtle automatic calculations that are not immediately obvious, and logic is needed in many things (yes, and again, logic).

Yes, but without philosophy, logic is just a tool, as is mathematics.

Not knowing the language, you can still survive. In the city, in the forest - it doesn't matter where. Just remember the hermits, the inhabitants of tiny villages, guest workers, the homeless. A homeless person can sit all day at a pedestrian crossing, not saying a word, with an outstretched hat or glass, a hermit can live in the forest, and although it can be very difficult in the psychological sense without communication, a peasant can plow the land, talking only in gossip with his neighbor, a guest worker can work as a janitor and communicate with gestures, receiving food and shelter... But none of them can live without knowing the basic principles of mathematics.

A peasant doesn't necessarily need to know how many sunny days there are in a year - the plants can know that; the peasant is just an assistant. A guest worker can certainly come to a foreign land, not knowing the language, live, eat, and work, but there's a significant caveat: he didn't come just like that; he came to earn money. From where he can hear his native language, from where he will inevitably return. Mathematics is not as important to him as the well-being of his family. To breathe, you don't necessarily need to know how many breaths you need to take. For every one of your arguments, you can find a counter-argument (and this is, by the way, the advantage of a person who is not inclined to the exact sciences - he can look at one thing from different angles), and this argument will not end until you get bored:smile40: And in general, according to the formulation, mathematics is just a science that studies numbers, structures, spaces, and transformations. Well, is that enough, or will we continue to look for "fresh" arguments in favor of mathematics?:smile40:

Added after 22 minutes

If a Dryopithecus saw two separate, parallel-growing trees, not having speech, he could not name them in any way. Well, maybe "ugauht" or something like that. And even then, it's not really a definition. Rather, it's an "intuitive impulse." Seeing two other trees, he might even forget about it... But the point is? The point is that he still understood that they were parallel, that they did not intersect, even if he did not have the words and definitions for it. That's how it is.

Here's something else I noticed: To understand what parallel means, you need to imagine imaginary lines that never intersect, and to imagine straight lines, you need to have a certain concept of infinity, which cannot be obtained mathematically. That is, philosophy is at the basis of mathematical basics, without which all of mathematics is vague, inaccurate, and unreal.