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 28 Mar 2010 09:55 J. Clarke wrote: > 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? > he just runs BASIC and it tells him the value of 2.0 + 2.0 which is not 4.0. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Mar 2010 10:03 Ste wrote: > 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. I know. >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. ARe you stating that all is known? The sciences will disagree with you. >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. > IOW, your use of "traditional language" is referring to human language. Math isn't this kind of languge; it is a tool for descriptive purposes. > > >>>>> 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. and you are wrong. > > > >>>> 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. Action. I have given what I mean. Since the definition cannot support your ideas about math, you begin to call me names and try change the topic. > > > >>>>> 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. IOW, you can't answer the question. > > > >>>>> 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. None of those are verbs; they are descriptors. > > 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. I have answered your questions. You aren't accepting them. /BAH
From: Ste on 28 Mar 2010 12:41 On 28 Mar, 15:03, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Ste wrote: > > >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. > > ARe you stating that all is known? The sciences will disagree with > you. No, I wasn't stating that. I simply said that anything of meaning that is known about the physical world can be conveyed mathematically, even if cumbersomely. Where maths does fall down, and where traditional language has a decided advantage, is in describing more abstract, ethereal concepts. To put it another way, maths is not the language of creativity and imagination. > >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. > > IOW, your use of "traditional language" is referring to human > language. Math isn't this kind of languge; it is a tool > for descriptive purposes. I continue to insist that maths is a language, and I fail to see how you demarcate the two by identifying maths as a "tool for descriptive purposes". > >>>>> 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. > > and you are wrong. So I gather you don't want to elaborate. I don't think there's much more I can say to someone who is really just making bald statements of opinion and refuses to elaborate or discuss them. > >>>> 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. > > Action. I have given what I mean. Since the definition cannot > support your ideas about math, you begin to call me names and try > change the topic. No, you haven't given what you mean, otherwise I wouldn't be asking you to explain what you mean. I'm calling you stubborn as a mule because you've consistently failed to give more information as requested, and indeed a number of other people besides me have commented on this unwarranted failure to provide information that would allow the discussion to progress. And I repeat, maths can convey action/change. If you are not willing to accept the explanation that I've given, and not willing to explain yourself further and progress the discussion, then I really don't see what else you expect to get from this discussion. And just so we're clear, this isn't me folding my arms and refusing to discuss it futher - I'm interested in your point, even if I ostensibly disagree with it. But there can be no further progress unless you try to answer some of our questions about what you mean by "verb" and "action", since a number of people including me have pointed out specific ways in which maths conveys action and change. > >>>>> 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. > > IOW, you can't answer the question. Not unless you do more to explain what you are asking, no. > >>>>> 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. > > None of those are verbs; they are descriptors. How do verbs and "descriptors" differ then? And as I said earlier, a graph which plots some quantity over time clearly conveys action. > > 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. > > I have answered your questions. You aren't accepting them. I've asked you a number of time to explain *what you mean*. You've consistently failed to do so, either just repeating previous statements, or making one-word answers that don't really show any engagement with the problems we're all having here understanding you. For example, you haven't once answered my question about whether a "verb" must be a specific and standalone word within a sentence structure.
From: Richard Dobson on 28 Mar 2010 12:55 On 28/03/2010 14:53, jmfbahciv wrote: ... >> As any programmer will tell you, > > No they won't. Here we go... "oh yes they will!". I've been questioning the usage of the word "language" > w.r.t. HLL compilers and interpreters, too. > Question away. There does seem to be a great deal of enthusiasm on this list for redefining everything, one way or another. Take away established usage for established words and you need to supply an alternative that enables people to communicate at least as well as the original. And then persuade people to use it. What would be your preference - "Semiotic code"? (http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem08.html) Maybe see also (if you can find a copy), Ch 8: "The Language Myth and Mathematical Notation as a Language of Nature", Daniel R. Davis, in: "the language Myth in Western Culture", Curzon Press, 2002." ... > All of the posters have been using the term as a human language, > not a machine language. > That much is very apparent, if unstated. Anyway, the existing canon of thought with respect to language in general, and formal languages in particular, is "out there", ready to be drawn upon ad libitum, as is the work of Chomsky et al. Or ignore it; but whether that will reach any useful conclusion is as yet indeterminate. Richard Dobson
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Mar 2010 08:09
Richard Dobson wrote: > On 28/03/2010 14:53, jmfbahciv wrote: > .. >>> As any programmer will tell you, >> >> No they won't. > > Here we go... "oh yes they will!". <grin> Nope. I are one and I don't make that statement. > > I've been questioning the usage of the word "language" >> w.r.t. HLL compilers and interpreters, too. >> > Question away. There does seem to be a great deal of enthusiasm on this > list for redefining everything, one way or another. Sure. That happens to a computer term about every 4 years now. > Take away > established usage for established words and you need to supply an > alternative that enables people to communicate at least as well as the > original. And then persuade people to use it. What would be your > preference - "Semiotic code"? I'm not advocating nor objecting to the usage. Somebody made a claim and all I asked was to give an example of a verb. So far, their replies are smoke and mirrors. > > (http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem08.html) > > > Maybe see also (if you can find a copy), Ch 8: "The Language Myth and > Mathematical Notation as a Language of Nature", Daniel R. Davis, in: > "the language Myth in Western Culture", Curzon Press, 2002." Thanks for the pointer. I'll try to find it. I'd like to know where this attitude came from. > > .. >> All of the posters have been using the term as a human language, >> not a machine language. >> > > That much is very apparent, if unstated. But note that the same types of people consider a Fortran statement and equation. Last month one guy thought that the angle brackets used in HLLs were inequalities. >Anyway, the existing canon of > thought with respect to language in general, and formal languages in > particular, is "out there", ready to be drawn upon ad libitum, as is the > work of Chomsky et al. Or ignore it; but whether that will reach any > useful conclusion is as yet indeterminate. > All I wanted was an example of a verb. :-) I can't think of one so the people who are declaring the concept should be able to give me one. I don't consider counting an example of a verb. /BAH |