lekahe says: I guess I am a formalist Um...none of the above. The LAWS of mathematics exist and just need to be discovered. The language of mathematics (i.e. symbols, etc.) has been invented for the purpose explaining the aforementioned laws. So in essence, they're both correct. The constructionists are kinda far out there, and have complete disregard for the irrational (I) numbers, which have some engineering applications, but are not contained in the set of real numbers(R). Um...none of the above. The LAWS of mathematics exist and just need to be discovered. The language of mathematics (i.e. symbols, etc.) has been invented for the purpose explaining the aforementioned laws.Actually I would not even speak of LAWS in mathematics. That belongs to physics and other sciences which use applied mathematics as a tool to handle their laws. The whole structure of mathematics is made by people and the Theorems just show how new structures can be connected to the old ones. There are many people who think that the study of mathematics should be based on the reality and the needs of other sciences. I disagree. The beauty and excitement of mathematics is t... Do Mathematics Exist?how 2 calculate this question? it is 4sure a mathematical riddle !! .. I too am a formalist. However, as a formalist, I find it amazing that mathematics can have any application in the real world, and can be used to predict the world when applied to engineering disciplines like physics. A point, line or plane are abstract, mental constructs; yet their properties can be used to extrapolate, say, if a bridge will stand, even though the bridge is not made of points, lines and planes. Leopold Kronecker (1823-1891), German mathematician and logician: Die natürlichen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott erschaffen, alles andere ist Menschenwerk. I'm what one might call a complete and total egghead, as my degree is in Pure and Applied Mathmatics, however, I don't see how one could attribute the set of N to God without attributing R to God, as well. Also, just because we can't see a point in space, doesn't mean space isn't full of them. Dimensionless things do exist. That's pretty much the link between physics (and applied mathematics) and theoretical mathematics. You can't have it both ways. Either all the real numbers exist or none of them do. I like Kronecker's statement. He however is wrong. There is nothing in maths which would be given from above. The reason I like it is that maths is really amazing and beautiful when we are concentrating only in Integers Real numbers and even rational numbers have also amazing features but there is magic in Integers. Maths is beautiful! i found a brilliant saying in relation to your popular clip dear lekahe.. -)) * Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic (1917) ch. 4 Where do the Pythagoreans fit in all this? ;D |
View the Top Clips from September 1, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||