# /leftymath/

Hey comrades, thought it might be interesting to have a thread where we can discuss mathematics, resources for learning math better if you aren't well-versed, if you've forgotten a lot or are otherwise really out of practice, applications of math to socialism, analytic Marxism, etc.

Just thought it could be a productive topic for discussion!

Also, here's a cool math book by a soviet mathematician!

Some more soviet mathbooks!

That book is actually quite good, I didn't expect that.

What do you need to know to understand this book?

Yesssssss

I cited this one on linear programming recently: gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=6FE8D04D032C4CBE6A3846C69E1D98AC

Calculus and some Linear Algebra, but don't expect anything too complex since the study of modern economics is usually not that heavy on mathematics (as say, physics). Unless you know absolutely nothing about calculus and linear algebra, I recommend you just read it and take your time to look into anything you don't understand - the textbook structure of the book really helps for that.

Now if you actually haven't ever touched a textbook on calculus or linear algebra, check out the first five chapters from the attachment, and the first two from here: gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=introduction to linear algebra strang (you really just need the first two chapters - at least it seems like it since I just skimmed through Shaikh's book)

Also, Cockshott recently wrote an article about the topic of hypercomputation (models which could hypothetically provide non-Turing computable outputs), addressing the use of it to argue for free-market capitalism and against computational socialism: paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/no-mysteries-davis-and-the-myth-of-hypercomputation/

Thank you, I'll check it out

Some basic calculus.

can anyone recommend a decent intro to probability theory and statistics?

Help a brainlet out, what does that mean?

Basically, this proposed rebuttal against Cockshott's computational planning relies on the fact that all modern digital computers are Turing complete, meaning that any function that can be computed by them, can be computed by any machine that meets some basic criteria - one of them is the ability to represent all input and output data as a binary tape, which is the point contested by the Hayekians (the problem of knowledge: that supposedly not all information could be represented digitally and therefore, there needs to be a market to transmit this 'tacit knowledge' between economic agents). Here's a video briefly explaining what a Turing complete machine is: youtube.com/watch?v=RPQD7-AOjMI

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation

Note that authors such as Martin Davis and of course Cockshott himself are vehemently against the very idea that hypercomputation is possible - read into them if you're interested.

Wiki article on the CTT - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church–Turing_thesis
Turing completeness - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness
Turing's original paper - cs.ox.ac.uk/activities/ieg/e-library/sources/tp2-ie.pdf
A book whose first chapter is dedicated to introduce the topic, along with a copy of the original paper and commentary: gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=A63FD3150FE366A3A1EB4B8A615EB5D9

It's decent if you need an introduction to HS or college-level topics. What are you looking to learn?

...

seconding that purple book in image 2

Since all IRL data is discrete, does that make the calculus easier?

anybody have books on fractal geometry?

math was never my strong suit, i'm taking fucking trig at uni right now. not that difficult, but calculus is next semester and i'll get boned. whats the best site for calc notes?

Your teacher's website or 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Facebook🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 group with where that super-cute classmate of yours which you will never be able to date posts them.

tldr
Cuckshot just tries to rub more pseudoscience bullshit into your eyes and resorted to
after he was BTFO by people who actually understand the subject this snake oil seller is talking about

>>>/liberty/

Got it.

While economic data is often discrete (you can find somewhat exact values for labor time, monetary indicators etc.) I wouldn't say that is what makes the calculus 'easier' - rather, it's that while in a calculus course you'd spend a lot of time working through proofs and problems of mathematical analysis, in economics it's often just a simple application of a small aspect of calculus (i.e. differentiation as 'rate-of-change' and integration as 'accumulation').
If anything, you might have a tough time working through Shaikh's Capitalism not because it involves the occasional calculus, but simply because it's a thousand-page treaty of modern Marxian economic analysis.

Try to veer away from that 'I'll get boned' mentality.
Work through whatever book the class suggests (likely Stewart or similar, see the infographics posted above for some suggestions).
If you're having trouble understanding a proof or an exercise see if YT or Khan Academy has a video for it.
This is the most important part: take your own notes on white paper and pencil when attending class or reading a book, and then transcribe them onto a notebook - this forces you to go through your exercises, proofs, etc. a second time, and consequently 1) you'll understand better and 2) you'll hopefully end up with tidy, readable notes to study from.

I finally found a readlist for this, pic related. Pretty sure there was another though (titled 'Analytical Marxism Reading List' or something)

fuck forgot pic

Are there any other cyber-MLs besides Cockshott?

Most of the people with whom he co-authored Classical Econophysics all also share some kind of interest on the topic.

Allin Cottrell is an economist and has co-authored a ton of stuff with Cockshott, mainly TANS and Computers and Economic Democracy.
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/

Gregory J. Michaelson is a computer scientist and seems to have little involvement in the whole cybersocialism thing other than co-authoring some papers with Cockshott.
macs.hw.ac.uk/~greg/
eprints.gla.ac.uk/4476/1/4476.pdf

Ian Peter Wright defines himself as a multidisciplinary 'space scientist' but he also has worked on post-capitalist theory, having a blog dedicated to that, similar to Cockshott's:
ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/2017/01/02/blockchain-and-the-material-foundations-for-socialist-institutions/
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0704/0382.html (him debating with Alejandro Agafornow, a market socialist)

Victor M. Yakovenko is the only one who doesn't seem to have any work related to cybersocialism - he just co-authored the book since he himself researches econophysics as well.
physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/

(unrelated: I found an old Altavista page of his where he details his own introductory Marxist reading list, among other things reality.gn.apc.org/)

Zuse was for that, but I don't think he developed anything. (There's a short book Arno Peters wrote about talking with Zuse about the usage of computers in socialist planning that really doesn't tell you anything aside from DUUUDE, COMPUTERS could be used for doing price-demand adjustments and also decisions where to build factories and so on. There is nothing about how to actually compute that stuff.) Mikhail Botvinnik and Oskar Lange shilled for computer planning in the 60s, though what I've read by them so far wasn't particularly informative either.

>Ian Peter Wright
Ian Paul Wright

Is it possible to believe that mathematics exists 'above' and 'outside' of human beings in the sense that we discover rather than invent it, while otherwise being a materialist?

Analytical Marxism is something different from that, I believe. A late 20th century attempt to put Marxism in this contemporary axiomatic framework. Often very anti-Hegelian.

I don't think so. Why would you want this?

Do centrimeters exist without us measuring them?
Its a meaningless philosophical question. They work, thats all that matters.

My calc book is Briggs, Cochran and Gillett. I have Stewart second edition sitting on my desk. I feel that my college is the largest porky in my county and just wants my money.

Is a real number transcendental or not before it has been decided by proof? Does the act of proof determine truth, or reveal it?

Due to shitty teaching and exams, whenever mathematics is mentioned, I just glass over. I'm not even bad at it, but anything outside arithmetic and basic algebra is entirely beyond me.

Help a brainlet out.

Different user, but you may want to read Badiou's response to the cahiers pour l'analyse section by Jacques Alain-Miller. It covers the concept of the observed versus in-observable event, universality, and the concept of a philosophical matheme. The whole point behind it is to illustrate the possibility of the existence of processes that precede philosophical address and thus, their reproduction in the form of didactic power structures. Goes on to become a huge part of the Marxist philosophical concept of 'truth processes'

Two of these guys are on twatter: @ianpaulwright and @GregMichaelson1

Mathematics is mainly used as a language to describe things. Is spoken language discovered or invented?

This of course turns the philosophical question into a rather simple one.

But one can make statements about mathematics being universal.

Compare for example eyes of vertebrates and eyes of cephalopods. Two different groups of living organisms get to have almost identical sensory instruments.

With mathematics, aliens on planet somewhere else might also develop their numbers, infinitesimal calculus, partial differential equations and integral transforms, their operator algebr

But with your question, you probably know which of the possibilities is mathematical Platonism and which one is not.

Try this:
projecteuler.net

Teaches you mathematics and programming by giving you problems to solve. Starting from easy difficulty to more difficult. Just to kickstart your progress. Then as you go in your study of theory, focus on practical uses of the theory.
Also if you want to have an easy time with the math, download GNU Octave,

gnu.org/software/octave/

leftymath starts with the axiom that: 2 + 2 = 5.

...

Here's another good one on the topic by Badiou.