about maths: strictly speaking, off topic, but justified.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: doubts about tetrahedral packing in 3D is a solid packing #516 Correcting Math
Next: JSH:Twin primes probability correlation
From: rabid_fan on 18 Mar 2010 12:29 On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:56:15 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: > > Damn! another possibly interesting thread down the drain. Rabidity is > simply another kooker. > I do not approve of your comity or comportment. If the world was not the effete and hyper-civilized bastion of pansies that it has become, I would resume the ancient tradition and challenge you to a duel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel But it would be no contest. I would mercilessly beat you into a broken and bloody mess and leave your quivering entrails lying in the dirt as a feast for the ravens and crows. Fortunately for you, Usenet keeps us all physically well separated. Otherwise, my fists would have already rearranged your face and given you a brand new dental profile.
From: Ste on 18 Mar 2010 17:05 On 17 Mar, 15:40, rabid_fan <r...(a)righthere.net> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:10:00 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: > > >> Another, more general, name for mathematics, is, guess what, logic: > > > No, it is not. > > Yes, it is. Mathematics is a formal system, which contains > symbols, a grammar, a set of axioms, and inference rules. > Logic is the process by which the whole thing proceeds from > axioms and inferences to statements, based on the grammar, > and theorems. "Verbs" are to be construed as the assertions > made regrading any of the objects, as they are in ordinary > language. > > But actually, the statement that "mathematics is a language" > is being used a bit more loosely, I would think, in this > discussion. Mathematics, like language, is used to convey > meaning about the world, and mathematical objects, like the > objects of language, are used as a basis for thought and > conjecture. I suspect any attempt to iron out the looseness in this discussion will founder spectacularly. Mathematics is, as you say, like traditional language in that it conveys meaning and is used as the basis for thought and reasoning. I suspect the *differences* between mathematics and language, if any, are nuances that are insignificant for this discussion, and best left to acamdemic experts to articulate. A point I would make however is that mathematics, like traditional language, has no inherent meaning, and its meaning is learned in exactly the same way as traditional language, of using our senses to make meaningful connections between language and concrete reality.
From: Urion on 18 Mar 2010 17:58 On Mar 18, 11:05 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > A point I would make however is that mathematics, like traditional > language, has no inherent meaning, and its meaning is learned in > exactly the same way as traditional language, of using our senses to > make meaningful connections between language and concrete reality. Mathematics is a formal language and also an art. Currently it is the only way we have to describe the material universe using our cognitive faculties. This means that we cannot know anything about the universe beyond our biological senses. But I do agree with you that mathematics is not the real thing because it only uses a paper and a pencil. But currently it's all we have.
From: J. Clarke on 18 Mar 2010 20:21 On 3/18/2010 12:29 PM, rabid_fan wrote: > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:56:15 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> >> Damn! another possibly interesting thread down the drain. Rabidity is >> simply another kooker. >> > > I do not approve of your comity or comportment. If the world was not > the effete and hyper-civilized bastion of pansies that it has become, > I would resume the ancient tradition and challenge you to a duel: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel > > But it would be no contest. I would mercilessly beat you into a > broken and bloody mess and leave your quivering entrails lying in > the dirt as a feast for the ravens and crows. > > Fortunately for you, Usenet keeps us all physically well separated. > Otherwise, my fists would have already rearranged your face and > given you a brand new dental profile. Pathetic. Just pathetic. <plonk>
From: Ste on 19 Mar 2010 06:04
On 18 Mar, 21:58, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 11:05 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > A point I would make however is that mathematics, like traditional > > language, has no inherent meaning, and its meaning is learned in > > exactly the same way as traditional language, of using our senses to > > make meaningful connections between language and concrete reality. > > Mathematics is a formal language and also an art. Currently it is the > only way we have to describe the material universe using our cognitive > faculties. This means that we cannot know anything about the universe > beyond our biological senses. > > But I do agree with you that mathematics is not the real thing because > it only uses a paper and a pencil. But currently it's all we have. I think everyone agrees that language "is all we have" to describe the universe - not least because the verb "describe" strongly implies the use of language. And I also agree that we cannot know anything about the universe beyond our biological senses, but I would arge that anything that cannot be sensed is irrelevant anyway - and I'm giving a broad meaning to the word "sense" here. I think the main thing to emphasise about language however, is that it is content and meaning, and not form, that counts. |