Why mathematics is neither absolutely nor objectively "right."

[Swammerdami]

I don't think we have any "professional mathematicians" here, but being a mathematician is not a binary proposition. Certainly almost everyone in the thread is very familiar with the notion of modular arithmetic.

IIDB does have a few outstanding mathematicians, but most have steered clear of this thread! I do not have a PhD in math but several math PhDs have asked me for help on their proofs; and decades ago I scored 99.998 percentile on several math contests. I think my opinions have merit.

I think thread participants should apologize to each other, and find a more interesting topic.

Mathematical symbols are formally defined in advance. If you want to change the definitions, then you are just using the same symbols in a nonnormal context. This is not a criticism of the popular claim that "2 + 2 = 4" is always true. It is always true, if you always interpret the symbols as defined by popular convention. If you don't want to do that, go back in your corner and do as you please. Just don't insist that everyone else join you there.

This is correct, except for the phrase "non-normal context." A phrase like "less common usages" would have been less judgmental. And less likely to provoke Mr. Soldier.

OP's "mathematics-is-neither-absolutely-nor-objectively-right" is much more unfortunate. The rules of arithmetic on the integers ARE absolutely and objectively correct, and so are the rules for other well-founded fields — residue groups, p-adic numbers — or even non-field algebras, e.g. quaternions. Yes, symbols like "+" are overloaded and applied in domains other than integer arithmetic. So what? Does Unknown Soldier think each mathematical algebra needs its own Unicode character set? Leaping from the overloading on a finite keyboard to conclusions in epistomology or ontology seems rather < Deleted by Mod >.

I tried to hint at all this earlier by quoting famous mathematicians, but to no avail. Let me try again.

I cannot endorse the discussions in this thread, but they are vaguely related to the conflicting schools of mathematical philosophy. I've appended a few insightful quotations from pre-eminent mathematicians.

Formalism

Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper.

The essence of mathematics lies in its freedom.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In other news, today or tomorrow I will start a thread with a title like "Did Jesus of Nazareth exist? How to estimate the probability." I hope our mathematicians will read the thread, asking intelligent questions and making other contributions.

Finally, a nitpick:

Boolean Algebra
a && b = c

In the two examples the equal sign has different meaning.

Nitpick: I've never seen "&&" in a mathematical paper — It looks instead like C code. But C code with a syntax error. Did you mean "a && b == c" ? (And did you omit parentheses for precedence?)

 

[steve_bank]

In C && is logical AND and & is bit wise AND.

In formal logic & represents logical AND. Meant & as in formal logic.

Technically Boolean AND is +. Should have written a + b = c. a AND b = c. The point being = can have different meanings. One has to lok at the definitions of a particular system.

There are numerous Boolean Algebra tools some of which use C or C like syntax.

In formal logic thee are multiple symbols for the same logic function.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Certainly almost everyone in the thread is very familiar with the notion of modular arithmetic.

LOL!

IIDB does have a few outstanding mathematicians, but most have steered clear of this thread!

That's odd. Why would they be afraid of proof that math isn't absolutely or objectively right?

I do not have a PhD in math but several math PhDs have asked me for help on their proofs; and decades ago I scored 99.998 percentile on several math contests. I think my opinions have merit.

With credentials like that, you should be able to help me with a set-theory problem I'm working on.

Let f : R+ × R+ → R+ be defined as f(x, y) = x/y. What is the closure set of Z+, the positive integers, under f? I'm getting the closure set as Q+, the set of positive rational numbers. I will gladly accept either an affirmation or a correction with an explanation why I am right or wrong.

I think thread participants should apologize to each other, and find a more interesting topic.

I say let's discuss this issue as long as we find it compelling. If you're bored with the topic, then there's a very easy solution to that problem: Move on. Why try to spoil other people's fun?

OP's "mathematics-is-neither-absolutely-nor-objectively-right" is much more unfortunate. The rules of arithmetic on the integers ARE absolutely and objectively correct...

That is incorrect as I've already demonstrated on my What proof is there that 2 + 2 = 4? thread. The proof that 2 + 2 = 4 rests on arbitrary rules and axioms created by mathematicians. One of these made-up rules is the "successor rule." Without this successor rule, there is no basis for the "truth" that 2 + 2 = 4.

These facts don't bother me a bit. I can live with uncertainty and differing points of view on any subject including mathematics. What does bother me is the poor state of math education, and it doesn't help when people go into an online forum rambling about math when they don't know what they're talking about. In those cases I need to speak up.

 

[steve_bank]

Feldercarb, Gobbledygook.

More cut and paste.

Within algebra that 1+1 = 2 is derived from definitions. It is by definition true.

In Booolean Algebra 1 + 1 = 1, how about that?

Posting copious jargon does not get you mathematcal credibility. Hand waving copious jargon is a very old but stale tactic.

I saw a few people who fooled some others with jargon, all the while having little comprehension.

 

[Swammerdami]

IIDB does have a few outstanding mathematicians, but most have steered clear of this thread!

That's odd. Why would they be afraid of proof that math isn't absolutely or objectively right?

Your tone is condescending and annoying.

With credentials like that, you should be able to help me with a set-theory problem I'm working on.

Let f : R+ × R+ → R+ be defined as f(x, y) = x/y. What is the closure set of Z+, the positive integers, under f? I'm getting the closure set as Q+, the set of positive rational numbers. I will gladly accept either an affirmation or a correction with an explanation why I am right or wrong

On a scale of 0 to 10 how do you rate the difficulty of this problem? How do you think an actual mathematician would rate it?

.. . . What does bother me is the poor state of math education, and it doesn't help when people go into an online forum rambling about math when they don't know what they're talking about. In those cases I need to speak up.

I'm not familiar with all the Infidels, and don't have a list of thread participants in front of me. But I'll guess that most you've been "debating" with (and insulting) have more PRACTICAL skill than you at some branches of math. These are smart people who do NOT specialize in pure math. I'll guess most couldn't even define quaternions. I doubt you can until you Google it.

None of us are writing like mathematicians. Mr. Soldier writes like a boy with a shiny new pair of roller skates. He knows a little math jargon that several others here knew before Mr. Soldier was born, and have long since forgotten! I see Mr. Soldier responding to thread participants in a condescending fashion, as if he's teaching math. Some of the other participants MIGHT respond to Mr. Soldier's tone with irritation or even anger. But none of us are speaking like mathematicians at all. Anyway, what is the point of this thread? Is OP a philosophical question?

I imagine many of my own posts — especially this one — may themselves seem very condescending, and I suppose they are. We can discuss Swammerdami's psychiatry in another, Elsewhere thread.

@ Unknown Soldier — Why don't you go to the Math subforum and solve the theorems of Pecking Order Theory — still unsolved on THIS board!

It's a smallish board and the best puzzle solvers say " I get PAID to solve puzzles more fun than these! But I DIG those Pecking Order Theorems. They're based on a math structure far FAR simpler than even the residue class 2: (1+1=0). The pecking order systems are based SOLELY on the relation (a>b)

Please Mr. Soldier, check out that Pecking Order thread. If you want help on those theorems and use a friendly respectful tone, I'd be there to help! (Or not. Find a way to insult me instead and declare yourself thread winner. That's fine if you prefer.)

I hope it's not out of line to note that the theorems you have asked about are SO trivial I wonder if you're composing an Onion parody of Mr. Dunning, Meet Mr. Kruger. I expect you to find a way to insult me; I will elide the rejoinder by apologizing in advance to you and all other this-thread Infidels for that.

 

[steve_bank]

With credentials like that, you should be able to help me with a set-theory problem I'm working on.
Let f : R+ × R+ → R+ be defined as f(x, y) = x/y. What is the closure set of Z+, the positive integers, under f? I'm getting the closure set as Q+, the set of positive rational numbers. I will gladly accept either an affirmation or a correction with an explanation why I am right or wrong

Sounds like nonsense.

Set Closure -- from Wolfram MathWorld

A set S and a binary operator * are said to exhibit closure if applying the binary operator to two elements S returns a value which is itself a member of S. The closure of a set A is the smallest closed set containing A. Closed sets are closed under arbitrary intersection, so it is also the...

mathworld.wolfram.com

 

[Unknown Soldier]

IIDB does have a few outstanding mathematicians, but most have steered clear of this thread!

That's odd. Why would they be afraid of proof that math isn't absolutely or objectively right?

Your tone is condescending and annoying.

No it isn't. I was just asking a follow-up question to what you just posted.

With credentials like that, you should be able to help me with a set-theory problem I'm working on.

Let f : R+ × R+ → R+ be defined as f(x, y) = x/y. What is the closure set of Z+, the positive integers, under f? I'm getting the closure set as Q+, the set of positive rational numbers. I will gladly accept either an affirmation or a correction with an explanation why I am right or wrong

On a scale of 0 to 10 how do you rate the difficulty of this problem? How do you think an actual mathematician would rate it?

I would rate it as too difficult for you to solve.

.. . . What does bother me is the poor state of math education, and it doesn't help when people go into an online forum rambling about math when they don't know what they're talking about. In those cases I need to speak up.

I'm not familiar with all the Infidels, and don't have a list of thread participants in front of me. But I'll guess that most you've been "debating" with (and insulting) have more PRACTICAL skill than you at some branches of math.

Well, the checkout girl down at the convenience store has lots of practice in math, but I don't envy her.

These are smart people who do NOT specialize in pure math.

I don't know how you can know that.

I'll guess most couldn't even define quaternions. I doubt you can until you Google it.

That's a word for Google if I ever saw one!

None of us are writing like mathematicians.

I don't write like a mathematician. I write as a mathematician.

Mr. Soldier writes like a boy with a shiny new pair of roller skates. He knows a little math jargon that several others here knew before Mr. Soldier was born, and have long since forgotten! I see Mr. Soldier responding to thread participants in a condescending fashion, as if he's teaching math. Some of the other participants MIGHT respond to Mr. Soldier's tone with irritation or even anger. But none of us are speaking like mathematicians at all. Anyway, what is the point of this thread? Is OP a philosophical question?

You called me "a boy with a shiny new pair of roller skates." You said I merely know math jargon. Ouch. I am devastated. I will be depressed for days. You really know how to hurt a guy.

I can finish your analogy by saying that I am like a boy with a shiny new pair of roller skates who needs to defend his skates from a gang of bullies who are jealous of his skates.

I imagine many of my own posts — especially this one — may themselves seem very condescending, and I suppose they are.

I think you just got done complaining about my alleged insults only to post one of your own.

@ Unknown Soldier — Why don't you go to the Math subforum and solve the theorems of Pecking Order Theory — still unsolved on THIS board!

I haven't studied it. Are you hoping I can't solve those theorems so you can mock and insult me?

So congratulations for derailing this thread. It started out with a discussion about the supposed truths of math, and now you have me defending myself against your personal attacks. I think that resorting to personal attacks is a sure sign that a debater knows that her arguments are about to sink.

 

[steve_bank]

To summarize what aoears to be the argument made by the OP.

P1: 1 + 1 = 2 in Algebra.
P2: 1 + 1= 1 in Boolean.
P3: 1 + 1 = 10 in binary.
C: Math is therefore not objective.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To summarize what aoears to be the argument made by the OP.

P1: 1 + 1 = 2 in Algebra.
P2: 1 + 1= 1 in Boolean.
P3: 1 + 1 = 10 in binary.
C: Math is therefore not objective.

I think my problem is they open with a non-mathematical claim and never actually back it up.

It's very popular these days to see mathematics as one truth we can know is objectively and absolutely right.

Effectively, US opens up saying people dumb on math.

I must disagree.

They wrong. Me smart.

A common example of this supposed absolute and objective truth is the equation 2 + 2 = 4.

Now he is just making dumbs arguments for people. No one says "Math is absolute and objective. Just look at the equation 2+2... It equals four." *people nodding around them*

We are told that for all times and places, 2 + 2 = 4, no matter what!

And within the context it is spoken, when told all the time and in all places, it is actually correct. Simple arithmetic... base10 numbers, 2+2 will always equal four.

So the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 depends on what arbitrary set of rules you are using. No absolute or objective truth can be so arbitrary. Hence in general, mathematics is neither absolutely nor objectively "right."

And here I think he violates the dictionary by trying to stuff his view of the words absolute and objective.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

To summarize what aoears to be the argument made by the OP.

P1: 1 + 1 = 2 in Algebra.
P2: 1 + 1= 1 in Boolean.
P3: 1 + 1 = 10 in binary.
C: Math is therefore not objective.

I think my problem is they open with a non-mathematical claim and never actually back it up.

It's very popular these days to see mathematics as one truth we can know is objectively and absolutely right.

Effectively, US opens up saying people dumb on math.

I must disagree.

They wrong. Me smart.

A common example of this supposed absolute and objective truth is the equation 2 + 2 = 4.

Now he is just making dumbs arguments for people. No one says "Math is absolute and objective. Just look at the equation 2+2... It equals four." *people nodding around them*

We are told that for all times and places, 2 + 2 = 4, no matter what!

And within the context it is spoken, when told all the time and in all places, it is actually correct. Simple arithmetic... base10 numbers, 2+2 will always equal four.

So the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 depends on what arbitrary set of rules you are using. No absolute or objective truth can be so arbitrary. Hence in general, mathematics is neither absolutely nor objectively "right."

And here I think he violates the dictionary by trying to stuff his view of the words absolute and objective.

This post is just a lot of abusive, childish garbage. You either are completely ignorant of the subject matter or are very good at feigning that ignorance.

 

[steve_bank]

This post is just a lot of abusive, childish garbage. You either are completely ignorant of the subject matter or are very good at feigning that ignorance.

Uhhh. that is our point to you. A weak attempt to turning the table.

You are arguing from ignorance.

Cite an example when using the rules of algebra and arithmetic wge\hen 2 + 2 does not equal 4. It is not possible.

Yu say reading math books for 10 years makes you a mathemetcian. Having read books on psychology for 10 yeras I am now a psycholgist, right? Clearly the image posted reflects a feeling of being emasculated of the poster. Don't you agree? The trunk is obviously phallic.

And we of course are the crocodile..

Do you agree or disagree?
P1: 1 + 1 = 2 in Algebra.
P2: 1 + 1= 1 in Boolean.
P3: 1 + 1 = 10 in binary.
C: Math is therefore not objective.

 

[steve_bank]

Universal Soldier

Can you cite any specific area in maths that when applied within stated bounds and rules does not always work?

 

[Tharmas]

As a non-mathematician I hesitate to post in this thread, but I came across the below quote this morning and I thought it might be of interest. I assume most posters in this thread would consider the observation to be trivially true.

The quote is from The Great Paradox of Science by theoretical physicist Mano Singham, and it is part of a discussion about the difference between pure mathematics and mathematics as used by scientists. Emphasis is in the original.

Even a statement such as “1+1=2,” which most people might regard as a universal truth that cannot be denied, is seen by them [pure mathematicians] as merely the consequence of certain starting assumptions, and one cannot assign any absolute truth value to it. So pure mathematicians concern themselves more with the rigor of proof, and less with whether the theorems resulting from them have any meaning that could be related to truth in the empirical world. What is important is that the axioms be consistent, or at least appear to be so since we can never prove them to be so. Whether they say anything about the physical world that can be described as true has ceased to be determinative.

… So while in mathematics the statement “1+1-2” is simply a string of symbols representing a theorem based on a particular set of axioms and rules of logic, in science, its empirical truth or falsity is extremely important and is judged by how well real objects (apples, chairs, etc.) conform to it.

Rather than “right” Singham uses the term “true,” which I prefer, but perhaps there is a subtle difference that I’m not catching.

 

[pood]

As a non-mathematician I hesitate to post in this thread, but I came across the below quote this morning and I thought it might be of interest. I assume most posters in this thread would consider the observation to be trivially true.

The quote is from The Great Paradox of Science by theoretical physicist Mano Singham, and it is part of a discussion about the difference between pure mathematics and mathematics as used by scientists. Emphasis is in the original.

Even a statement such as “1+1=2,” which most people might regard as a universal truth that cannot be denied, is seen by them [pure mathematicians] as merely the consequence of certain starting assumptions, and one cannot assign any absolute truth value to it. So pure mathematicians concern themselves more with the rigor of proof, and less with whether the theorems resulting from them have any meaning that could be related to truth in the empirical world. What is important is that the axioms be consistent, or at least appear to be so since we can never prove them to be so. Whether they say anything about the physical world that can be described as true has ceased to be determinative.

… So while in mathematics the statement “1+1-2” is simply a string of symbols representing a theorem based on a particular set of axioms and rules of logic, in science, its empirical truth or falsity is extremely important and is judged by how well real objects (apples, chairs, etc.) conform to it.

Rather than “right” Singham uses the term “true,” which I prefer, but perhaps there is a subtle difference that I’m not catching.

If we lived in a world where every time two objects are brought together, a third object appears, would 1+1=3?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

As a non-mathematician I hesitate to post in this thread, but I came across the below quote this morning and I thought it might be of interest. I assume most posters in this thread would consider the observation to be trivially true.

The quote is from The Great Paradox of Science by theoretical physicist Mano Singham, and it is part of a discussion about the difference between pure mathematics and mathematics as used by scientists. Emphasis is in the original.

Even a statement such as “1+1=2,” which most people might regard as a universal truth that cannot be denied, is seen by them [pure mathematicians] as merely the consequence of certain starting assumptions, and one cannot assign any absolute truth value to it. So pure mathematicians concern themselves more with the rigor of proof, and less with whether the theorems resulting from them have any meaning that could be related to truth in the empirical world. What is important is that the axioms be consistent, or at least appear to be so since we can never prove them to be so. Whether they say anything about the physical world that can be described as true has ceased to be determinative.

… So while in mathematics the statement “1+1-2” is simply a string of symbols representing a theorem based on a particular set of axioms and rules of logic, in science, its empirical truth or falsity is extremely important and is judged by how well real objects (apples, chairs, etc.) conform to it.

Rather than “right” Singham uses the term “true,” which I prefer, but perhaps there is a subtle difference that I’m not catching.

Well, most of the posters here will deny what Singham is saying, but I recognize that what Singham is saying is correct. In fact it's essentially what I've been arguing on two different threads: "Starting assumptions" determine the truths of mathematics. From then on the proofs of those truths need only to be consistent within the context of the arbitrarily chosen set of rules. I took it one step further by citing an example of those arbitrary rules; the successor function. Without the made-up successor function, there is no proof that 2 + 2 = 4.

Anyway, thank you very much for that citation. It probably won't change the minds of any of the "math fundamentalists" here, however. They want badly to believe that mathematics is absolutely true and won't take no for an answer.

 

[pood]

As a non-mathematician I hesitate to post in this thread, but I came across the below quote this morning and I thought it might be of interest. I assume most posters in this thread would consider the observation to be trivially true.

The quote is from The Great Paradox of Science by theoretical physicist Mano Singham, and it is part of a discussion about the difference between pure mathematics and mathematics as used by scientists. Emphasis is in the original.

Even a statement such as “1+1=2,” which most people might regard as a universal truth that cannot be denied, is seen by them [pure mathematicians] as merely the consequence of certain starting assumptions, and one cannot assign any absolute truth value to it. So pure mathematicians concern themselves more with the rigor of proof, and less with whether the theorems resulting from them have any meaning that could be related to truth in the empirical world. What is important is that the axioms be consistent, or at least appear to be so since we can never prove them to be so. Whether they say anything about the physical world that can be described as true has ceased to be determinative.

… So while in mathematics the statement “1+1-2” is simply a string of symbols representing a theorem based on a particular set of axioms and rules of logic, in science, its empirical truth or falsity is extremely important

and is judged by how well real objects (apples, chairs, etc.) conform to it.

Rather than “right” Singham uses the term “true,” which I prefer, but perhaps there is a subtle difference that I’m not catching.

Well, most of the posters here will deny what Singham is saying, but I recognize that what Singham is saying is correct. In fact it's essentially what I've been arguing on two different threads: "Starting assumptions" determine the truths of mathematics. From then on the proofs of those truths need only to be consistent within the context of the arbitrarily chosen set of rules. I took it one step further by citing an example of those arbitrary rules; the successor function. Without the made-up successor function, there is no proof that 2 + 2 = 4.

Anyway, thank you very much for that citation. It probably won't change the minds of any of the "math fundamentalists" here, however. They want badly to believe that mathematics is absolutely true and won't take no for an answer.

Singham agrees with us and not you.

 

[lostone]

As a non-mathematician I hesitate to post in this thread, but I came across the below quote this morning and I thought it might be of interest. I assume most posters in this thread would consider the observation to be trivially true.

The quote is from The Great Paradox of Science by theoretical physicist Mano Singham, and it is part of a discussion about the difference between pure mathematics and mathematics as used by scientists. Emphasis is in the original.

Even a statement such as “1+1=2,” which most people might regard as a universal truth that cannot be denied, is seen by them [pure mathematicians] as merely the consequence of certain starting assumptions, and one cannot assign any absolute truth value to it. So pure mathematicians concern themselves more with the rigor of proof, and less with whether the theorems resulting from them have any meaning that could be related to truth in the empirical world. What is important is that the axioms be consistent, or at least appear to be so since we can never prove them to be so. Whether they say anything about the physical world that can be described as true has ceased to be determinative.

… So while in mathematics the statement “1+1-2” is simply a string of symbols representing a theorem based on a particular set of axioms and rules of logic, in science, its empirical truth or falsity is extremely important and is judged by how well real objects (apples, chairs, etc.) conform to it.

Rather than “right” Singham uses the term “true,” which I prefer, but perhaps there is a subtle difference that I’m not catching.

Well, most of the posters here will deny what Singham is saying, but I recognize that what Singham is saying is correct. In fact it's essentially what I've been arguing on two different threads: "Starting assumptions" determine the truths of mathematics. From then on the proofs of those truths need only to be consistent within the context of the arbitrarily chosen set of rules. I took it one step further by citing an example of those arbitrary rules; the successor function. Without the made-up successor function, there is no proof that 2 + 2 = 4.

Anyway, thank you very much for that citation. It probably won't change the minds of any of the "math fundamentalists" here, however. They want badly to believe that mathematics is absolutely true and won't take no for an answer.

For once, I find what I think of as a good reason to agree with you.

 

[bilby]

If we lived in a world where every time two objects are brought together, a third object appears, would 1+1=3?

In Colin Kapp's Getaway from Getawehi, part of his excellent 'Unorthodox Engineers' collection of Science Fiction, he describes a planet with a number of bizarre characteristics, including that joining two one-metre long beams end to end results in a beam with a total length of 1.5708m.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

As a non-mathematician I hesitate to post in this thread, but I came across the below quote this morning and I thought it might be of interest. I assume most posters in this thread would consider the observation to be trivially true.

The quote is from The Great Paradox of Science by theoretical physicist Mano Singham, and it is part of a discussion about the difference between pure mathematics and mathematics as used by scientists. Emphasis is in the original.

Even a statement such as “1+1=2,” which most people might regard as a universal truth that cannot be denied, is seen by them [pure mathematicians] as merely the consequence of certain starting assumptions, and one cannot assign any absolute truth value to it. So pure mathematicians concern themselves more with the rigor of proof, and less with whether the theorems resulting from them have any meaning that could be related to truth in the empirical world. What is important is that the axioms be consistent, or at least appear to be so since we can never prove them to be so. Whether they say anything about the physical world that can be described as true has ceased to be determinative.

… So while in mathematics the statement “1+1-2” is simply a string of symbols representing a theorem based on a particular set of axioms and rules of logic, in science, its empirical truth or falsity is extremely important and is judged by how well real objects (apples, chairs, etc.) conform to it.

Rather than “right” Singham uses the term “true,” which I prefer, but perhaps there is a subtle difference that I’m not catching.

Well, most of the posters here will deny what Singham is saying, but I recognize that what Singham is saying is correct. In fact it's essentially what I've been arguing on two different threads: "Starting assumptions" determine the truths of mathematics. From then on the proofs of those truths need only to be consistent within the context of the arbitrarily chosen set of rules. I took it one step further by citing an example of those arbitrary rules; the successor function. Without the made-up successor function, there is no proof that 2 + 2 = 4.

Anyway, thank you very much for that citation. It probably won't change the minds of any of the "math fundamentalists" here, however. They want badly to believe that mathematics is absolutely true and won't take no for an answer.

For once, I find what I think of as a good reason to agree with you.

Good. Knowledge is amazing, isn't it? What I've been saying is "true" but only within the context of the arbitrary rules of being a reasonable, honest member of this board.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Anyway, thank you very much for that citation. It probably won't change the minds of any of the "math fundamentalists" here, however. They want badly to believe that mathematics is absolutely true and won't take no for an answer.

Singham agrees with us and not you.

Are you an engineer, by any chance?