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: jmfbahciv on 22 Mar 2010 09:40 J. Clarke wrote: > On 3/21/2010 11:23 AM, Darwin123 wrote: >> On Mar 21, 9:32 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>> On 3/21/2010 9:01 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Ste wrote: >>>>> On 20 Mar, 13:01, jmfbahciv<jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >>>>>> Ste wrote: >>>>>>> On 19 Mar, 13:38, jmfbahciv<jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >>>>>>>> Ste wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 18 Mar, 21:58, Urion<blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 11:05 pm, Ste<ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> "Let" would be one of them. >>> >>> But most people who talk about "math" are really talking about algebra >>> over the reals. >> >> When I talk about math, I am usually thinking about "word problems." >> Word problems attempt to model the "reals" in terms of "algebra." >> The use of words is very important in math. Math isn't really >> about numbers. Math is about logic. >> Math often involves abstractions. However, an abstraction is >> usually just a model for "reals." > > Flag this post and when you have completed your first year of > college-level study toward a math degree come back and take a look at it > and see how far that year has taken you in your understanding. That's what's been bothering me in this thread. People keep confusing math and how it's used with science and analytical thinking. > > "Reals" in mathematics has a specific meaning that is unrelated to the > meaning that you seem to be using. It refers to a set of numbers, and > no more and no less. "Algebra over the reals" is a set of operations on > that set, mapping pairs of reals onto a third real. There are many > other kinds of algebra defined. > > Your "word problems" ask you to set up some kind of mathematical > structure to allow the solution of the problem. They are not part of > mathematics per se, they are more in the nature of physics or engineering. > And math is used as tool, nothing more. I'm noticing the growth of a belief system which is assuming that all one has to do is find the "correct" high school algebraic equation and all the world's problems will be solved. It's a tool; not the cause and not the effect. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Mar 2010 09:48 Ste wrote: > On 21 Mar, 13:01, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> Ste wrote: >> >>>>> I think we'd need to be more specific about what we mean by "language" >>>>> - I'm using it very generally, perhaps in the sense of "something that >>>>> conveys meaning via abstract impressions on the senses". >>>> What senses? Math doesn't have anything to do with senses. >>> It concerns the real world, >> No, it does not, thus... > > Then we disagree. I find it hard to identify any maths that does not > ultimately have its basis and applicability in the real world. Have you considered that you don't know what you don't know? One of my college classes developed an algebra which may not have anything to do with the "real" world. Why do you think all math has to have a basis and applicability in the real world? Is it possible that that's the only "math" usage you've encountered? > > > >>>> I know >>>> you are using the word language sloppily. So is the other guy. >>>> Only the other guy is further confused by the use of the word >>>> in the computer biz; I don't know if you're doing the same. >>> I'm not "confused" by the word. I've stated that I'm using it loosely, >>> and I've asked you to clarify your questions. >> I don't know how to write the sentence more clearly than... >> if you claim that math is a language, then what are the verbs? >> I don't care how "loosely" you're defining the word language, >> all have verbs. > > Yes, but action can be implied. For example, if I say Jack is at the > house, and then next say Jack is at the market, then the verb (of > "movement") is expressed at the level of a sentence or paragraph, > rather than at the level of a word. It's your interpretation which assumes there was movement. I could read the two sentences and interpret them to mean that Jack lives at the market which is in his house. > > Obviously mathematics as a language is not adapted to making detailed > qualitative descriptions, but that is not to say that it is incapable > of expressing actions. then give an example. > > > >>>>>> So, answer the question: >>>>>> what are the verbs in math? >>>>> What do you mean by verbs? Clearly maths can be used to describe >>>>> action/change. >>>> Now answer the question. What are the verbs in math? Pick >>>> any branch of mathematics and list the verbs. >>> I'm not refusing to answer the question! You've only asked me once, >>> and I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by "verbs". >> Action. Look it up in the dictionary. > > I did, even before you told me to, in order to try and gather some > further implicit detail about your question. All I asked was to give an example of a verb. So far, two people tried today. > > > >>> Also if you >>> asked me "what are the nouns" or "what are the adjectives", "which is >>> the nominative case", etc, I'd still be asking you to clarify what you >>> meant, because these terms don't tend to be used in maths - but you do >>> have "variables", etc. >> [emoticon wafts the smoke away and breaks all the mirrors] >> I didn't ask about nouns and other flavors of words. I asked about >> verbs. Period. > > You know you're awfully abrasive towards someone who is merely asking > for you to explain your question. I don't know how write the question simpler. > > As I pointed out above, "action" can be conveyed at a higher level > than the word. But because you haven't clarified what you mean, I'm > not sure whether you were specifically asking "where are the word- > verbs in maths" as opposed to merely asking "how does maths describe > action and change". If math is a language, then it has to have verbs. So give an example of a verb. I maintain that math is a tool which is a shorthand method of conveying 50 textbooks of learning on paper. It is used to describe all kinds of things which have associations (I don't like that word but can't think of a better one). /BAH
From: Ste on 22 Mar 2010 15:55 On 22 Mar, 13:48, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Ste wrote: > > On 21 Mar, 13:01, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> Ste wrote: > > >>>>> I think we'd need to be more specific about what we mean by "language" > >>>>> - I'm using it very generally, perhaps in the sense of "something that > >>>>> conveys meaning via abstract impressions on the senses". > >>>> What senses? Math doesn't have anything to do with senses. > >>> It concerns the real world, > >> No, it does not, thus... > > > Then we disagree. I find it hard to identify any maths that does not > > ultimately have its basis and applicability in the real world. > > Have you considered that you don't know what you don't know? > One of my college classes developed an algebra which may not > have anything to do with the "real" world. Why do you think > all math has to have a basis and applicability in the real world? > Is it possible that that's the only "math" usage you've > encountered? Perhaps, but if there is any maths that doesn't concern the real world, then it probably doesn't concern humans at all. I maintain that maths has its utility in conveying meaning about the real world. Sure, it is possible to ostensibly use language without conveying real meaning, for example if I say "burble burble blah blah", but sensible people will dimiss that as meaningless noise. > >>>> I know > >>>> you are using the word language sloppily. So is the other guy. > >>>> Only the other guy is further confused by the use of the word > >>>> in the computer biz; I don't know if you're doing the same. > >>> I'm not "confused" by the word. I've stated that I'm using it loosely, > >>> and I've asked you to clarify your questions. > >> I don't know how to write the sentence more clearly than... > >> if you claim that math is a language, then what are the verbs? > >> I don't care how "loosely" you're defining the word language, > >> all have verbs. > > > Yes, but action can be implied. For example, if I say Jack is at the > > house, and then next say Jack is at the market, then the verb (of > > "movement") is expressed at the level of a sentence or paragraph, > > rather than at the level of a word. > > It's your interpretation which assumes there was movement. I could > read the two sentences and interpret them to mean that Jack > lives at the market which is in his house. The same is true of any language. If I say "Jack ran to the market", it doesn't really say how he ran. Did he run with crutches because he has one leg? Did he run with his hands, or on all-fours? Of course, everyday language is geared towards making efficient qualitative descriptions of *everyday* actions, whereas maths isn't. You could however show the movement of Jack's knees over time, and thereby allow the discerning eye to see that he was running in the normal way - and of course, if people were accustomed to dealing with such data, it would become obvious how the action was performed just by looking at a stream of numbers. > > Obviously mathematics as a language is not adapted to making detailed > > qualitative descriptions, but that is not to say that it is incapable > > of expressing actions. > > then give an example. I've given you an example already, that maths expresses action by making a series of statements that differ from each other. To repeat the example, that "Jack is at the house" and then saying "Jack is at the market". More detailed descriptions of the action could be conveyed by making statements that "t=0.1. Jack's left knee is two feet ahead of his right " and then saying "t=0.15. Jack's right knee is two feet ahead of his left", and from a repeating pattern like that we would be able to ascertain how he moved from the house to the market. > >>>>>> So, answer the question: > >>>>>> what are the verbs in math? > >>>>> What do you mean by verbs? Clearly maths can be used to describe > >>>>> action/change. > >>>> Now answer the question. What are the verbs in math? Pick > >>>> any branch of mathematics and list the verbs. > >>> I'm not refusing to answer the question! You've only asked me once, > >>> and I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by "verbs". > >> Action. Look it up in the dictionary. > > > I did, even before you told me to, in order to try and gather some > > further implicit detail about your question. > > All I asked was to give an example of a verb. So far, two people > tried today. And I've asked you to explain what you require when you ask for a "verb". I feel I've answered your question already, but were you asking for a specific word when you asked for a "verb"? Or are you simply asking how maths describes action, which is the question I've responded to? > > As I pointed out above, "action" can be conveyed at a higher level > > than the word. But because you haven't clarified what you mean, I'm > > not sure whether you were specifically asking "where are the word- > > verbs in maths" as opposed to merely asking "how does maths describe > > action and change". > > If math is a language, then it has to have verbs. It certainly has to describe action, and I've shown you how that can be done. As to whether language "must have verbs", that depends on how you define "verb" - I see no reason why a meaningful language needs to have explicit word-verbs. > So give an example > of a verb. I maintain that math is a tool which is a shorthand > method of conveying 50 textbooks of learning on paper. It is used > to describe all kinds of things which have associations (I don't like > that word but can't think of a better one). I'm not sure how this differs from traditional language.
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Mar 2010 08:46 Ste wrote: > On 22 Mar, 13:48, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> Ste wrote: >>> On 21 Mar, 13:01, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >>>> Ste wrote: >>>>>>> I think we'd need to be more specific about what we mean by "language" >>>>>>> - I'm using it very generally, perhaps in the sense of "something that >>>>>>> conveys meaning via abstract impressions on the senses". >>>>>> What senses? Math doesn't have anything to do with senses. >>>>> It concerns the real world, >>>> No, it does not, thus... >>> Then we disagree. I find it hard to identify any maths that does not >>> ultimately have its basis and applicability in the real world. >> Have you considered that you don't know what you don't know? >> One of my college classes developed an algebra which may not >> have anything to do with the "real" world. Why do you think >> all math has to have a basis and applicability in the real world? >> Is it possible that that's the only "math" usage you've >> encountered? > > Perhaps, but if there is any maths that doesn't concern the real > world, then it probably doesn't concern humans at all. Huh? Calculus, for most people, doesn't concern their real world. Does that make it useless? I've heard the same objections to learning high school algebra. This is what I get for scratching a surface. Have you ever taken a geometry, changed one of the axioms and built a new geometry? > I maintain that > maths has its utility in conveying meaning about the real world. Sure, > it is possible to ostensibly use language without conveying real > meaning, for example if I say "burble burble blah blah", but sensible > people will dimiss that as meaningless noise. > > > >>>>>> I know >>>>>> you are using the word language sloppily. So is the other guy. >>>>>> Only the other guy is further confused by the use of the word >>>>>> in the computer biz; I don't know if you're doing the same. >>>>> I'm not "confused" by the word. I've stated that I'm using it loosely, >>>>> and I've asked you to clarify your questions. >>>> I don't know how to write the sentence more clearly than... >>>> if you claim that math is a language, then what are the verbs? >>>> I don't care how "loosely" you're defining the word language, >>>> all have verbs. >>> Yes, but action can be implied. For example, if I say Jack is at the >>> house, and then next say Jack is at the market, then the verb (of >>> "movement") is expressed at the level of a sentence or paragraph, >>> rather than at the level of a word. >> It's your interpretation which assumes there was movement. I could >> read the two sentences and interpret them to mean that Jack >> lives at the market which is in his house. > > The same is true of any language. If I say "Jack ran to the market", > it doesn't really say how he ran. Did he run with crutches because he > has one leg? Did he run with his hands, or on all-fours? Of course, > everyday language is geared towards making efficient qualitative > descriptions of *everyday* actions, whereas maths isn't. You could > however show the movement of Jack's knees over time, and thereby allow > the discerning eye to see that he was running in the normal way - and > of course, if people were accustomed to dealing with such data, it > would become obvious how the action was performed just by looking at a > stream of numbers. > > > >>> Obviously mathematics as a language is not adapted to making detailed >>> qualitative descriptions, but that is not to say that it is incapable >>> of expressing actions. >> then give an example. > > I've given you an example already, that maths expresses action by > making a series of statements that differ from each other. To repeat > the example, that "Jack is at the house" and then saying "Jack is at > the market". More detailed descriptions of the action could be > conveyed by making statements that "t=0.1. Jack's left knee is two > feet ahead of his right " and then saying "t=0.15. Jack's right knee > is two feet ahead of his left", and from a repeating pattern like that > we would be able to ascertain how he moved from the house to the > market. You are simply giving a fact of the length of his pace. Putting an equal sign in the number isn't math. and it certainly isn't any "verb" used in math. > > > >>>>>>>> So, answer the question: >>>>>>>> what are the verbs in math? >>>>>>> What do you mean by verbs? Clearly maths can be used to describe >>>>>>> action/change. >>>>>> Now answer the question. What are the verbs in math? Pick >>>>>> any branch of mathematics and list the verbs. >>>>> I'm not refusing to answer the question! You've only asked me once, >>>>> and I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by "verbs". >>>> Action. Look it up in the dictionary. >>> I did, even before you told me to, in order to try and gather some >>> further implicit detail about your question. >> All I asked was to give an example of a verb. So far, two people >> tried today. > > And I've asked you to explain what you require when you ask for a > "verb". An action. Give an example of an action term used by math. >I feel I've answered your question already, but were you > asking for a specific word when you asked for a "verb"? Or are you > simply asking how maths describes action, which is the question I've > responded to? > Given any math expression, indicate the verb. > > >>> As I pointed out above, "action" can be conveyed at a higher level >>> than the word. But because you haven't clarified what you mean, I'm >>> not sure whether you were specifically asking "where are the word- >>> verbs in maths" as opposed to merely asking "how does maths describe >>> action and change". >> If math is a language, then it has to have verbs. > > It certainly has to describe action, and I've shown you how that can > be done. No, you did not. You showed how to use math as a tool to analyze an action of a physical entity. >As to whether language "must have verbs", that depends on how > you define "verb" - Verb == action. Is that clearer? > I see no reason why a meaningful language needs to > have explicit word-verbs. No wonder you can't answer the question. > > > >> So give an example >> of a verb. I maintain that math is a tool which is a shorthand >> method of conveying 50 textbooks of learning on paper. It is used >> to describe all kinds of things which have associations (I don't like >> that word but can't think of a better one). > > I'm not sure how this differs from traditional language. Do you consider shorthand a language? /BAH
From: Ste on 23 Mar 2010 10:17
On 23 Mar, 12:46, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Ste wrote: > > On 22 Mar, 13:48, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> Ste wrote: > >>> On 21 Mar, 13:01, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >>>> Ste wrote: > >>>>>>> I think we'd need to be more specific about what we mean by "language" > >>>>>>> - I'm using it very generally, perhaps in the sense of "something that > >>>>>>> conveys meaning via abstract impressions on the senses". > >>>>>> What senses? Math doesn't have anything to do with senses. > >>>>> It concerns the real world, > >>>> No, it does not, thus... > >>> Then we disagree. I find it hard to identify any maths that does not > >>> ultimately have its basis and applicability in the real world. > >> Have you considered that you don't know what you don't know? > >> One of my college classes developed an algebra which may not > >> have anything to do with the "real" world. Why do you think > >> all math has to have a basis and applicability in the real world? > >> Is it possible that that's the only "math" usage you've > >> encountered? > > > Perhaps, but if there is any maths that doesn't concern the real > > world, then it probably doesn't concern humans at all. > > Huh? Calculus, for most people, doesn't concern their real > world. Does that make it useless? I've heard the same > objections to learning high school algebra. I think you may have misunderstood. When I said "real world", I didn't mean the subjective life-concerns of individuals, I meant the material/ physical world in which everyone resides. > This is what I get for scratching a surface. > > Have you ever taken a geometry, changed one of the axioms and > built a new geometry? No. > >>> Obviously mathematics as a language is not adapted to making detailed > >>> qualitative descriptions, but that is not to say that it is incapable > >>> of expressing actions. > >> then give an example. > > > I've given you an example already, that maths expresses action by > > making a series of statements that differ from each other. To repeat > > the example, that "Jack is at the house" and then saying "Jack is at > > the market". More detailed descriptions of the action could be > > conveyed by making statements that "t=0.1. Jack's left knee is two > > feet ahead of his right " and then saying "t=0.15. Jack's right knee > > is two feet ahead of his left", and from a repeating pattern like that > > we would be able to ascertain how he moved from the house to the > > market. > > You are simply giving a fact of the length of his pace. Putting > an equal sign in the number isn't math. and it certainly isn't > any "verb" used in math. I'm putting to you a means of describing an action "mathematically", by plotting the location of body parts over time. > > And I've asked you to explain what you require when you ask for a > > "verb". > > An action. Give an example of an action term used by math. See below... > >I feel I've answered your question already, but were you > > asking for a specific word when you asked for a "verb"? Or are you > > simply asking how maths describes action, which is the question I've > > responded to? > > Given any math expression, indicate the verb. ....further below... > >>> As I pointed out above, "action" can be conveyed at a higher level > >>> than the word. But because you haven't clarified what you mean, I'm > >>> not sure whether you were specifically asking "where are the word- > >>> verbs in maths" as opposed to merely asking "how does maths describe > >>> action and change". > >> If math is a language, then it has to have verbs. > > > It certainly has to describe action, and I've shown you how that can > > be done. > > No, you did not. You showed how to use math as a tool to analyze > an action of a physical entity. ....even further... > >As to whether language "must have verbs", that depends on how > > you define "verb" - > > Verb == action. Is that clearer? No it isn't any clearer. How many times do I have to ask you to specify what you mean by "verb"? If you can't specify it in any greater detail, then it is almost certainly a symptom of the fact that you don't really know what you're talking about. Are you looking for specific words, like "run"? If so, I think you're presupposing the answers to your own questions, and making a spectacle out of a rather trite observation that maths has no "verbs" in the sense of "single words that qualitatively but loosely describe everyday actions". As I said, my understanding of the function of verbs is to describe action. Mathematics can also describe action, as stated. Insofar as it is a requirement of language that it can describe action, then mathematics meets this test. I really have nothing more to say on the issue unless you want to specify in some greater detail why you're not content with this analysis and where you disagree with it. > > I see no reason why a meaningful language needs to > > have explicit word-verbs. > > No wonder you can't answer the question. Indeed. It would be nice if you tried to engage in the discussion instead of grandstanding. > >> So give an example > >> of a verb. I maintain that math is a tool which is a shorthand > >> method of conveying 50 textbooks of learning on paper. It is used > >> to describe all kinds of things which have associations (I don't like > >> that word but can't think of a better one). > > > I'm not sure how this differs from traditional language. > > Do you consider shorthand a language? I really don't know how shorthand works, but from what I do know about it, I would suppose it is more of a specialised orthography, rather than a distinct language separate from English. |