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: Matt on 25 Mar 2010 04:19 On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:36:40 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: >Matt wrote: >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:25:55 -0500, Matt wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:01:37 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb >> a verb ... conveys ... a state of being > >I hate wiki. I'm not talking about states of beings; that >will obfusicate (someday I'll unpack my dictionaries) this >thread. Here' a dictionary: http://www.yourdictionary.com/verb any of a class of words expressing action, existence, or occurrence, or used as an auxiliary or copula Many verbs of action are necessary in a dynamic world. The notion of a verb being associated with an action accounts for only 25% of the options listed in the cite above. What is moving in math? Where is the action word in, "I love you?" It simply expresses a state of being. Is there a more important verb?
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Mar 2010 08:53 Ste wrote: > 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"? A verb is a word which conveys an association about the physical interaction between the subject in a sentence and the object in the same sentence. > 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. > ah. smoke. > 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". You, yourself stated that maths only deal with everyday situations. So, give an example of a math term which is a verb. > > As I said, my understanding of the function of verbs is to describe > action. Mathematics can also describe action, as stated. no. Math gives you the tools to analyze an action. That isn't a verb; if I stretch the definition of an adjective, the results of a calculation is an adjective. This doesn't make math a language. >Insofar as it > is a requirement of language that it can describe action, then > mathematics meets this test. Describes...that is an adjective, not a verb. >I really have nothing more to say I agree. >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. /BAH
From: Ste on 27 Mar 2010 02:44 On 26 Mar, 12:53, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Ste wrote: > > >>> 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"? > > A verb is a word which conveys an association about the physical > interaction between the subject in a sentence and the object in > the same sentence. Yes, so when we say "I go to market", there is an "interaction" (in the very broadest sense of that word) between me and the market - namely, motion towards. But again, in maths, if I move closer to the market, then the motion towards is expressed by a decreasing distance between me and the market over time. Obviously that can be communicated on paper by either a series of numbers or a graph. > > 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". > > You, yourself stated that maths only deal with everyday situations. No I didn't say that at all. I said maths deals with the material world. > So, give an example of a math term which is a verb. We've been over this already. > > As I said, my understanding of the function of verbs is to describe > > action. Mathematics can also describe action, as stated. > > no. Math gives you the tools to analyze an action. That isn't > a verb; if I stretch the definition of an adjective, the results > of a calculation is an adjective. This doesn't make math a > language. Yes, but you haven't yet specified what you think a language is. I've tried to narrow it down, but you haven't replied to specific questions. > >Insofar as it > > is a requirement of language that it can describe action, then > > mathematics meets this test. > > Describes...that is an adjective, not a verb. No it isn't. You have the most laughably naive understanding of language. Do you know any foreign languages incidentally?
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Mar 2010 09:34 Ste wrote: > On 26 Mar, 12:53, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> Ste wrote: >> >>>>> 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"? >> A verb is a word which conveys an association about the physical >> interaction between the subject in a sentence and the object in >> the same sentence. > > Yes, so when we say "I go to market", there is an "interaction" (in > the very broadest sense of that word) between me and the market - > namely, motion towards. > > But again, in maths, if I move closer to the market, then the motion > towards is expressed by a decreasing distance between me and the > market over time. Obviously that can be communicated on paper by > either a series of numbers or a graph. You are counting something. Arithmetic is a very small piece of mathematics. > > > >>> 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". >> You, yourself stated that maths only deal with everyday situations. > > No I didn't say that at all. I said maths deals with the material > world. Not exclusively. > > > >> So, give an example of a math term which is a verb. > > We've been over this already. OK. So you cannot give an example. > > > >>> As I said, my understanding of the function of verbs is to describe >>> action. Mathematics can also describe action, as stated. >> no. Math gives you the tools to analyze an action. That isn't >> a verb; if I stretch the definition of an adjective, the results >> of a calculation is an adjective. This doesn't make math a >> language. > > Yes, but you haven't yet specified what you think a language is. I've > tried to narrow it down, but you haven't replied to specific > questions. Huh? All I've asked is, for those of you who declare that math is a language, to give an example of a verb. > > > >>> Insofar as it >>> is a requirement of language that it can describe action, then >>> mathematics meets this test. >> Describes...that is an adjective, not a verb. > > No it isn't. You have the most laughably naive understanding of > language. Do you know any foreign languages incidentally? No. None of that has to do with my question. /BAH
From: Ste on 27 Mar 2010 11:26
On 27 Mar, 13:34, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Ste wrote: > > On 26 Mar, 12:53, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> Ste wrote: > > >>>>> 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"? > >> A verb is a word which conveys an association about the physical > >> interaction between the subject in a sentence and the object in > >> the same sentence. > > > Yes, so when we say "I go to market", there is an "interaction" (in > > the very broadest sense of that word) between me and the market - > > namely, motion towards. > > > But again, in maths, if I move closer to the market, then the motion > > towards is expressed by a decreasing distance between me and the > > market over time. Obviously that can be communicated on paper by > > either a series of numbers or a graph. > > You are counting something. Arithmetic is a very small piece of > mathematics. I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm no mathematician. But as I say, there is no meaning relating to the physical world which is conveyed by traditional language, that cannot be conveyed by maths. The real power of traditional language is, I would imagine, it's ability to handle more vague, analogue meanings and abstract concepts, which would utterly confound a mathematical representation. > >>> 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". > >> You, yourself stated that maths only deal with everyday situations. > > > No I didn't say that at all. I said maths deals with the material > > world. > > Not exclusively. Yes exclusively, unless you want to elaborate on your views. > >> So, give an example of a math term which is a verb. > > > We've been over this already. > > OK. So you cannot give an example. As I say, I've been over it already. You are being stubborn as a mule in refusing to identify what you mean by "verb", bearing in mind the questions of definition I've asked of you previously. > >>> As I said, my understanding of the function of verbs is to describe > >>> action. Mathematics can also describe action, as stated. > >> no. Math gives you the tools to analyze an action. That isn't > >> a verb; if I stretch the definition of an adjective, the results > >> of a calculation is an adjective. This doesn't make math a > >> language. > > > Yes, but you haven't yet specified what you think a language is. I've > > tried to narrow it down, but you haven't replied to specific > > questions. > > Huh? All I've asked is, for those of you who declare that math > is a language, to give an example of a verb. But I'm *not sure what you mean* by these words, that's why I've asked you to define them. The fact that you seem to think the definition of words like "language" and "verb" is self-evident is a sure sign you know nothing about this subject. Until you do define your words further, all I can say is that (depending on your meanings) either I've given you the answer already, or what you're asking is a non- sequitur. > >>> Insofar as it > >>> is a requirement of language that it can describe action, then > >>> mathematics meets this test. > >> Describes...that is an adjective, not a verb. > > > No it isn't. You have the most laughably naive understanding of > > language. Do you know any foreign languages incidentally? > > No. None of that has to do with my question. I think you'll find it does, because your lack of exposure to the structures and grammar of other languages is almost certainly leading you to naive assumptions about the essential components of language. For example, word order is essential in English, it isn't in Greek (for example, "the dog bit the man" means something quite different in English to "the man bit the dog"). English also has a myriad of prepositions, whereas Greek relies heavily on word endings - to put it another way, discrete words found in English like "of" (used to express the genitive case), are not found in Greek (for example, "Theodore of Cyprus" would be "Theodoros Kyprou" in Greek). It also seems (having just done a quick search) that there are a number of Polynesian languages where, indeed, linguists struggle to demarcate verbs. I have pointed out how maths can express action and change in a variety of ways, and other posters have pointed out that a number of mathematical operators (for example, signs that represent addition, summation, integration, etc) convey instructions about how mathematical quantities interact. All this said, then, it seems to me that prima facie you have been answered, and I'm struggling to understand why you remain dissatisfied, especially when you refuse to answer any further questions that I've asked of you that would help me further understand your question (assuming I haven't understood it already) and help us progress this discussion. |