God by Numbers

[Newcomer4831]

I'm a Math major, fell in love with the subject ever since I met the Dr. House of mathematics. However, it's leading me down this path of "non-believing". A friend of mine even said that he's now an atheist because of mathematics. Another person (of atheism) stated that Christians (or any person of piety-math joke) isn't good at math. What do you guys think?

[pam]

I think it's a myth. I happen to know personally 2 math teachers in our school district. One is a Bishop and the other is a Stake President.

[mikbone]

Math Rocks.

All truth / science supports God.

How could a being who uses the laws of nature at his desire to create worlds and mankind not love math?

What kinda math are you studying that causes you to lose faith btw???

I remember sitting in a Biochem class and learning about DNA replication and translation and having a powerful spiritual confirmation that God designed the system. There is no way in hell that that system just "happened".

Some people go outside at night to look into the expanse and see the randomness of empty space and then think that supports Atheism. Thats nuts.

ALMA 30:44

[WillowTheWhisp]

God inventd math.

[hordak]

I don't know about math. But i can honestly tell you i would never see a shrink who wasn't an atheist/ agnostic.

[Elphaba]

Another person (of atheism) stated that Christians (or any person of piety-math joke) isn't good at math.?

Speaking as a person of atheism, that's stupid squared.

Oh wait. It's a joke. (I don't get it.)

Elphaba

[DigitalShadow]

I love math (almost as much as computers) and I am an atheist, but I really don't see the two as being related. I will say that I have noticed a slightly higher percentage of atheism among scientists and mathematicians, which I would like to attribute to the triumph of reason, but I'm sure many here would blame it on the pride of man or some such.

In any case if your friends can't respect what you believe (or don't believe), I would say to find new friends.

[HiJolly]

Set theory convinced me that God could give ALL that He has to an infinite number of His children. Did I miss something?

HiJolly

[MarginOfError]

If my moniker were not a hint, I am a statistician. Granted, pure mathematicians don’t think statistics falls under mathematics (and to some degree they are right), but statistical theory is still defined through rigorous mathematical proofs.

I think it’s important to remember that mathematics is not the science of numbers. It is, instead, the science of logic and abstraction. In mathematics, we try to think in broad terms, hoping to develop theories that have broad application while maintaining rigorous and undeniable logical proof. It’s the art of making connections and understanding relationships between things that might not otherwise seem connected.

Studying mathematics does not have to lead one down a path of ‘non-belief.’ In fact, some very simple mathematical concepts help to explain some of the wonderful intricacies of the Gospel. Take this tidbit for example:

Is the following statement true or false?

x * 0 = 0

I would hope that everyone that reads this would say that it is true. But what happens if we change the question a little

Do you know that x * 0 = 0?

I would imagine that most people here would answer yes to that question. I, however, would emphatically state that most people here do not know that statement is true. I would say instead that they merely believe that statement is true. I am willing to say this because I could ask the next question

Can you prove that x * 0 = 0?

and almost everyone here would have to answer either, “no,” or “it just is.” But the fact is, x * 0 = 0 doesn’t just happen…there is a reason that it happens. We can prove mathematically, that x * 0 = 0 as follows:

Theorem: x * 0 = 0

Proof

Consider the value x * 0

x * 0 = x * 0 + 0 ... and ... x * 0 = x * (0 + 0) (Additive Identity both)

=> x * 0 + 0 = x * (0 + 0) (Transitive property)

=> x * 0 + 0 = x * 0 + x * 0 (Distributive Property)

=> 0 = x * 0 (Cancellation - the proof of which I have no provided, but will assume is commonly accepted)

After going through this kind of an exercise, our faith can turn into knowledge. Now we have experienced and demonstrated that x * 0 = 0 for ourselves, and not just accepted the word of someone who wrote a math book.

But here’s the funny thing about proving that x * 0 = 0. It requires that we know that x + 0 = x. That is something that mathematicians can’t prove. Mathematicians everywhere must necessarily accept that x + 0 = x. And if we were to discover that it isn’t true, everything we know in mathematics (and possibly all of the sciences) would crumble to nothing. There are in fact, 13 assumptions like this on which the entire body of mathematics is based (assuming an algebraic approach to math—geometry takes a different approach, has different assumptions, but usually leads to the same conclusions. Perhaps Traveler would know more about this).

So, ironically, to be a mathematician requires you to be a man of faith. You must believe in the additive and multiplicative identities and the inverses. You must believe in the associative, distributive, and commutative laws. And you must believe these without proof of their existence. You must accept them simply because you feel like they are true.

And so it is with religion. We can take the scriptures and holy texts of any religion; we can study and parse the words and gradually define the doctrines of the religions from its texts. But eventually, we must simply accept, without proof, that God exists.

I’m not entirely sure I’ve been completely clear, but I hope you’ve at least captured my message. And I hope you’ll realize that studying math doesn’t have to mean you’re faith is diminished. Surely, mathematics (especially statistics) is the most godly of all the sciences!

Edited April 10, 2009 by MarginOfError
Clarify proof

[HiJolly]

I read a book about zero once. Very interesting.

HiJolly

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

God inventd math.

"God invented the whole numbers. All else is the work of man." -- some mathematician.

[DigitalShadow]

But eventually, we must simply accept, without proof, that God exists.

Not necessarily

[Traveler]

I'm a Math major, fell in love with the subject ever since I met the Dr. House of mathematics. However, it's leading me down this path of "non-believing". A friend of mine even said that he's now an atheist because of mathematics. Another person (of atheism) stated that Christians (or any person of piety-math joke) isn't good at math. What do you guys think?

I am a mathematician and physicist. I learned in high school that math is not a true science but a language of science. Interestingly math is what I call a perfect language for one cannot lie without misusing the language and anyone that understands the language of math can tell immediately when someone is lying mathematically.

I find many similarities in the constructs of mathematics and attributes of G-d. For example the idea that knowing the truth will set you free. Also if one thinks of the various mathematical theories as covenants there are amazing parallels. For example: integer number theory will allow solutions to various concepts but rational number theory increases solutions without denying integer number theory. So also can one “progress” in covenants with G-d.

I can say that mathematics is one primary reason that I am LDS and have difficulty with many other religious paradigms.

The Traveler

[Vort]

We can prove mathematically, that x * 0 = 0 as follows:

I confess, I don't understand this "proof". You start by assuming x*0=0, then go through a chain of arithmetic that arrives you at the conclusion that 0=x*0. But that was your initial assumption, so as a proof, it appears to be circular.

But here’s the funny thing about proving that x * 0 = 0. It requires that we know that x + 0 = x. That is something that mathematicians can’t prove.

That's because it's not a conjecture or even an observation, but a definition. 0 is the additive identity, defined as that number which, when added to any number x, returns x. Starting from basic number theory principles, it is straightforward to show that the additive identity in the real number system has the value 0, and that the same 0 times any number also yields 0. (This answer is intuitively obvious in language because of our happy choice in using "times" for multiplication.)

In any case, the OP is correct. As a group, religious folks suck at math. The unspoken part is that, as a group, atheists suck at math just as badly if not worse.

[Madriglace]

Oh I don't know .... Christians do pretty well with the multiply part.

[Dravin]

Oh I don't know .... Christians do pretty well with the multiply part.

Considering all the denominations they've got divide down as well. Also Mormons have addition down when others seem to have problems with it.

[Newcomer4831]

I confess, I don't understand this "proof". You start by assuming x*0=0, then go through a chain of arithmetic that arrives you at the conclusion that 0=x*0. But that was your initial assumption, so as a proof, it appears to be circular.

That's because it's not a conjecture or even an observation, but a definition. 0 is the additive identity, defined as that number which, when added to any number x, returns x. Starting from basic number theory principles, it is straightforward to show that the additive identity in the real number system has the value 0, and that the same 0 times any number also yields 0. (This answer is intuitively obvious in language because of our happy choice in using "times" for multiplication.)

In any case, the OP is correct. As a group, religious folks suck at math. The unspoken part is that, as a group, atheists suck at math just as badly if not worse.

That's because the proof he gave you wasn't the proof. You can't use your own theorem to prove your theorem, you have to use substitution or another proven theorem. It's like saying you earned 10 dollars from your own wallet.

The proof is as of follows.

a*1=a <- identity axiom

a*(1+0)=a <identity axiom of addition

a*1+a*0=a <-distributive axiom

a+a*0=a <-identity axiom again

a*0=a-a <-subtract the a's

a*0=0 thusly the theorem is proven.

If you are wondering about axioms, axioms are products of nature. They are imaginative yet correspond to real world situations. Much like the economy. all theories in math, even Euler's equation e^(i*pi)+1=0 can be derived in this fashion.

As far as losing faith, you have to question the derivatives of such things. Such perplexities such as morality and even heaven, where does that come from. If this is true "How could a being who uses the laws of nature at his desire to create worlds and mankind not love math?" then he certainly breaks his own law when Jesus feeds the masses. Where is the truth in that? Again when he creates woman from a rib. And if God really is an axiom, can he really be as elementary as a*1=a?

[Newcomer4831]

Also, I guess that the "holy" books of God don't even contain a single math equation.

I saw a thing where the name "Elohim" means "1 of many Gods". El meaning God, and ohim being a plural suffix.

I'm also heard from a crazy old man who said "The word God came from Good, because God is Good and God doesn't like to be inefficient so he dropped the extra O." He said this like God was some kind of Efficiency director and somehow saying Good takes far too much time to say than God.

[Vort]

The proof is as of follows.

a*1=a <- identity axiom

a*(1+0)=a <identity axiom of addition

a*1+a*0=a <-distributive axiom

a+a*0=a <-identity axiom again

a*0=a-a <-subtract the a's

a*0=0 thusly the theorem is proven.

This proof makes more sense to me, as long as you've established the identity axioms and the basic rules of arithmetic, such as the distributive property.

If you are wondering about axioms, axioms are products of nature.

I strongly disagree with this. Axioms are products of the human mind, just as much as any other linguistic construct. Of course, if you say that the human mind is a product of nature, then I suppose your statement becomes trivially true.

As far as losing faith, you have to question the derivatives of such things.

(d/dx)Faith = Hope

(d/dx)Hope = Charity

(d/dx)Charity = Faith

See? Just like trig.

If this is true "How could a being who uses the laws of nature at his desire to create worlds and mankind not love math?" then he certainly breaks his own law when Jesus feeds the masses.

This is completely non sequitur. How does "loving math" violate "feeding people"? Since the multiplication of loaves and fishes was clearly done within God's framework, no math precepts were violated.

Do you have a divine concept of God as "I Dream of Jeannie", where God folds his arms and blinks his eyes to make things pop into and out of existence? Because if you do, you should be aware that the LDS understanding of our Father is nothing like that.

[Dravin]

Also, I guess that the "holy" books of God don't even contain a single math equation.

It depends on what exactly you mean by talking about an equation but...

5 Now the reckoning is thus—a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.

6 A senum of silver, an amnor of silver, an ezrom of silver, and an onti of silver.

7 A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of barley, and also for a measure of every kind of grain.

8 Now the amount of a seon of gold was twice the value of a senine.

9 And a shum of gold was twice the value of a seon.

10 And a limnah of gold was the value of them all.

11 And an amnor of silver was as great as two senums.

12 And an ezrom of silver was as great as four senums.

13 And an onti was as great as them all.

14 Now this is the value of the lesser numbers of their reckoning—

15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.

16 And a shiblum is a half of a shiblon.

17 And a leah is the half of a shiblum.

18 Now this is their number, according to their reckoning.

19 Now an antion of gold is equal to three shiblons.

Its the worlds worst word problem!

[Elphaba]

Could you guys be more nerdy?

Elphaba

[Vort]

Could you guys be more nerdy?

Elphaba

That.

Is.

Awesome.

Weird Al + Donny = R0XX0RZ!!!

My boys know pi to about 70 places. Got a ways to go.

[MarginOfError]

I confess, I don't understand this "proof". You start by assuming x*0=0, then go through a chain of arithmetic that arrives you at the conclusion that 0=x*0. But that was your initial assumption, so as a proof, it appears to be circular.

I apologize for my hastily prepared post being unclear. I have edited the post to reflect what the theorem is and what the proof is.

That's because it's not a conjecture or even an observation, but a definition. 0 is the additive identity, defined as that number which, when added to any number x, returns x. Starting from basic number theory principles, it is straightforward to show that the additive identity in the real number system has the value 0, and that the same 0 times any number also yields 0. (This answer is intuitively obvious in language because of our happy choice in using "times" for multiplication.)

On a certain level, the assumptions--or more technically, the axioms--on which mathematics are based could be considered definitions. However, the 13 axioms I specifically made reference to are given special consideration not because humans decided it would be convenient to define them as such, but because they appeared to be already defined within nature, regardless of what we might wish they would be.

And sadly, "intuitively obvious" is not acceptable justification for mathematical proof. The classic example deals with closure. The Real Numbers (call them R)are closed under multiplication, meaning that for every pair of elements, x and y, in R, there exists another element--xy, called the product of x and y--that is also an element of R. We also find closure in the positive Reals, meaning that the product of two positive real numbers is a positive real number. It would seem "intuitively obvious" that the negative Reals are also closed--that the product of two negative real numbers is a negative Real number--but such is not the case. The reason why the negative Reals are not a closed is neither intuitive nor is it obvious. The reason has nothing to do with the typical explanations of direction and magnitude (merely interpretations and applications of what it means to be negative) etc, but is a consequence of the distributive property. That's about as non-intuitive and non-obvious as you can get.

In any case, the OP is correct. As a group, religious folks suck at math. The unspoken part is that, as a group, atheists suck at math just as badly if not worse.

Heartily agreed.

[MarginOfError]

That's because the proof he gave you wasn't the proof. You can't use your own theorem to prove your theorem, you have to use substitution or another proven theorem. It's like saying you earned 10 dollars from your own wallet.

What I had given was intended to be a proof, but I put it together so hastily that I ended up tying the theorem into its own proof...really a stylistic error. I just went back and fixed that error. I've also put in the axioms that justify each step.

[jadams_4040]

I'm a Math major, fell in love with the subject ever since I met the Dr. House of mathematics. However, it's leading me down this path of "non-believing". A friend of mine even said that he's now an atheist because of mathematics. Another person (of atheism) stated that Christians (or any person of piety-math joke) isn't good at math. What do you guys think?

There is scripture that commands us to not rationlize the gospel.:)