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 27 Mar 2010 12:29 On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:34:38 -0500, jmfbahciv 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. So? More on that later. >>>> As I said, my understanding of the function of verbs is to describe >>>> action. Which is too restrictive. Examples of other functions have been given. >> 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. Making demands while brushing away valid counter-questions. Do you agree that a written math expression conveys an understanding of an abstract concept? If so, how does it do that without a language? If there is a language involved, what language is it? >>>> 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. There are at least two deficiencies in your question: 1. The false premise that the only valid function of a verb is to describe action. 2. It is too literal. When people say "math is a language" they mean "the understandings of math expressions are conveyed within the context of a language." Math encompasses several languages. Your question assumes "math is a language" is comparable to the statement "speech is a language." Then this would be similar to the exchange above: You: Show me a verb in speech. Me: "Is" is a verb in speech. You: I don't like that form of verb. I want an action-word in speech. Ste: "Run" is an action-word verb in speech. You: That is an action-word in English. English is only a small piece of speech. I want an action-word in speech! Ste: Then show me an example of speech. You: See! You can't answer the question. Perhaps the question is not constructed as cleanly as it has seemed to you.
From: Richard Dobson on 27 Mar 2010 12:24 On 27/03/2010 13:34, jmfbahciv 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" - Hey folks, This ~could be~ a really interesting thread, but to escape the current moebius loop of flame and counter-flame it needs a little more theory. As any programmer will tell you, a language (in the absence of any other explicit qualifier such as "natural") doesn't need to have "verbs"; it can be an example of a Formal Language: e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language In short: it needs an alphabet of symbols, from which a set of defined words (representable as tokens) can be made, and a grammar with which to form legal (syntactically correct) statements using the words (such as "<statement> := <LHside><equality_word><RHside>"). Optionally, it can additionally have semantics, be more or less context-sensitive, and so on. Such things in turn form the foundation of languages that take mathematical language as a subset - Mathematica, Maple, Reduce, etc. Deciding if a "natural" language has verbs is the least of your problems, as in the canonical example: "Time flies like an arrow". "Fruit flies like a banana." Richard Dobson
From: Mount Logan on 27 Mar 2010 13:38 Not all of nature is mathematical (which makes me doubt if mathematics is really necessary to describe nature at all). There are many fields of science which do not rely on complicated mathematics like biology, biotechnology, chemistry (many people suck at mathematics but are good at chemistry), computer programming, electronics, automotive engineering and nanotechnology. Condensed matter physics for example also requires the use of much less mathematics than say "mathematical" physics topics like general relativity, quantum field theory, gauge theory, supersymmetry, supergravity etc...
From: J. Clarke on 27 Mar 2010 14:25 On 3/27/2010 1:38 PM, Mount Logan wrote: > Not all of nature is mathematical (which makes me doubt if mathematics > is really necessary to describe nature at all). There are many fields > of science which do not rely on complicated mathematics like biology, > biotechnology, chemistry (many people suck at mathematics but are good > at chemistry), computer programming, electronics, automotive > engineering and nanotechnology. You've never actually done any of those, have you?
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Mar 2010 09:53
Richard Dobson wrote: > On 27/03/2010 13:34, jmfbahciv 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" - > > Hey folks, This ~could be~ a really interesting thread, but to escape > the current moebius loop of flame and counter-flame it needs a little > more theory. > > As any programmer will tell you, No they won't. I've been questioning the usage of the word "language" w.r.t. HLL compilers and interpreters, too. >a language (in the absence of any other > explicit qualifier such as "natural") doesn't need to have "verbs"; it > can be an example of a Formal Language: e.g. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language > > In short: it needs an alphabet of symbols, from which a set of defined > words (representable as tokens) can be made, and a grammar with which to > form legal (syntactically correct) statements using the words (such as > "<statement> := <LHside><equality_word><RHside>"). Optionally, it can > additionally have semantics, be more or less context-sensitive, and so > on. Such things in turn form the foundation of languages that take > mathematical language as a subset - Mathematica, Maple, Reduce, etc. > > Deciding if a "natural" language has verbs is the least of your > problems, as in the canonical example: > > "Time flies like an arrow". > "Fruit flies like a banana." The word language which is used in the computer biz got its start with the term machine language, not human language. All of the posters have been using the term as a human language, not a machine language. /BAH |