Despite a number (???) of mathematicians subscribing (NOT ascribing) to it?

>>16713250 (OP)
you forgot that one statistics case in which 0^0=0 is neat

These rare edge cases kill the religionschizos who believe that math was created by g*d or something.

>>16713444
Isn’t G_d rather predicated on logic in ye olde theology?

>>16713549
I fail to see the logic in murder's (destruction of god's creation) ability to appease the gods.

>>16713553
How is destruction less logical than creation? They’re actually the same thing just looked at from two different sides of the temporal dimension

>>16713596
Destruction is low IQ behavior. Decay happens whether you want it or not, therefore if you want to destroy everything, you must simply do nothing. To destroy with intent to do so, is to be extremely illogical retarded subhuman animal.

>>16713250 (OP)
I’m a transcendental idealist when it comes to math. It’s all forms of Kant’s sensible intuition. No matter how complicated or abstract a topic is, it still relies on our perception of it as space and time. In most abstract setting, spatial intuition corresponds to topology (even very abstract stuff like Grothendieck topology has the intuition of locality and gluing local patches) and temporal intuition corresponds to algebra. The beauty of modern mathematics is that we get this Einsteinesque melding of space and time together. One can speak of locally free modules with intuition behind it drawn from manifold theory via the Serre-Swan duality. Or one can use homological algebra to classify geometric spaces via K-theory.

>>16713602
Destruction is how everything lives. We feed on destruction of other beings. Even plants depend upon destruction to bring nutrients in their soil

>>16713612
Not the same thing.

>>16713618
Decay is a subtype of destruction; destruction applies to more forms of existence and doesn't necessarily need to happen over a distinguishable length of time, while decay applies only to forms of existence that are affected by entropy/the passage of time and does need to happen over a distinguishable length of time to be called decay.

Why would it be a meme if a number of mathematicians don't subscribe to it? By that logic, non-constructive math, i.e. the majority of math, is a meme.

>>16713747
ESL….

philosophy is irrelevant

>>16713876
My bad. I read it again. Mathematical platonism is not a meme in the sense that many mathematicians subscribe to some form of it, but it is a meme in the sense that mathematicians spend their time doing math, not thinking about the philosophy of mathematics and whether it is invented or discovered etc.

This does vary, in my biased experience the more algebra and logic pilled types think more about these things while the analysis minded people don't care that much.

>>16713250 (OP)
No it's not a meme. In logic there are "vacuously true" statements and the things in your picrel can be seen as extensions of that notion.