• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Not directly since there are no perfect triangles but it ties into sine and cosine which ties into the equations that govern light. Which are always true no matter how often we measure them.

    • NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Right, so in Math we have axioms and we build upon those axioms and construct theorems which are deductively true. They are not true in the same way a scientific theory is. My point is, not everything that can be true needs empirical verification. Math is one example.

      • fkn@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        While what you say is true, tautological arguments are not useful in and of themselves. Internally consistent mathematics is not a useful construct unless we can empirically discover structures that those mathematical systems model. Einsteins theory of relativity is not impressive without the empirical discovery that the it is/was a better model than the existing Newtonian models that proceeded it.

        To argue that internally consistent tautologies are true and are of equivalent usefulness is a bad faith argument that inappropriately equates two logical constructs.