|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: mimusmimus Date: Apr 15, 2008 11:33
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:01:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
> On Apr 12, 7:20 am, "Suresh M.Sc" gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mathematicsisthe king of arts and the queen of all sciences.
>> Isn't?WhatisMathematics actually? Give me a best definition for
>> Mathematics. Thanks.
>
> Mathematics is the new Holy Bible! It's an invention. It was invented
> for the same
> reason the bible was invented, to explain the universe to others.
Mathematics is the description of form, and both form and its description
at bottom and simplest are binary (try to go simpler), best and most
simply described in the form (heh) of two laws, best and most simply
symbolized as
()()=()
and
(())=
and renderable in English as
|
| Show full article (2.10Kb) |
|
| | 39 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Apr 15, 2008 22:00
On Apr 15, 11:33 am, mimus hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:01:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 7:20 am, "Suresh M.Sc" gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> Mathematicsisthe king of arts and the queen of all sciences.
>>> Isn't?WhatisMathematics actually? Give me a best definition for
>>> Mathematics. Thanks.
>
Is math an instinct?
The cerebral substrates of arithmetic:
How and why did human beings evolve the ability to do mathematics?
We all possess the ability to cope with mathematics--if only we
recognize what's required. We all possess, if not literally a gene,
then at least an inherent ability not just for arithmetic but for real
mathematics: algebra, calculus, and the rest. A recent Darwinian
explanation for the origin of this ability, is based on the idea that
being able to handle abstract ideas and relationships confers key
evolutionary advantages.
|
| Show full article (16.01Kb) |
|
| | 14 Comments |
|
|
Author: Han de BruijnHan de Bruijn Date: Apr 16, 2008 07:18
Immortalist wrote:
> On Apr 15, 11:33 am, mimus hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:01:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 12, 7:20 am, "Suresh M.Sc" gmail.com> wrote:>>
>>>>Mathematicsisthe king of arts and the queen of all sciences.
>>>>Isn't?WhatisMathematics actually? Give me a best definition for
>>>>Mathematics. Thanks.
>
> Is math an instinct?
Mathematics is two things: the ART of creating ideas, and the SCIENCE of
applying those ideas to real world material.
Han de Bruijn
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jerry KrausJerry Kraus Date: Apr 16, 2008 07:58
On Apr 15, 1:33 pm, mimus hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:01:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 7:20 am, "Suresh M.Sc" gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> Mathematicsisthe king of arts and the queen of all sciences.
>>> Isn't?WhatisMathematics actually? Give me a best definition for
>>> Mathematics. Thanks.
>
>> Mathematics is the new Holy Bible! It's an invention. It was invented
>> for the same
>> reason the bible was invented, to explain the universe to others.
>
> Mathematics is the description of form, and both form and its description
> at bottom and simplest are binary (try to go simpler), best and most
> simply described in the form (heh) of two laws, best and most simply
> symbolized as
>
> ()()=()
>
> and ...
|
| Show full article (2.45Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Apr 16, 2008 08:10
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:00:43 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
> How and why did human beings evolve the ability to do mathematics?
Commerce, I believe.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: jonas.thornvalljonas.thornvall Date: Apr 16, 2008 16:14
On 15 Apr, 20:33, mimus hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:01:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 7:20 am, "Suresh M.Sc" gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> Mathematicsisthe king of arts and the queen of all sciences.
>>> Isn't?WhatisMathematics actually? Give me a best definition for
>>> Mathematics. Thanks.
>
>> Mathematics is the new Holy Bible! It's an invention. It was invented
>> for the same
>> reason the bible was invented, to explain the universe to others.
>
> Mathematics is the description of form, and both form and its description
> at bottom and simplest are binary (try to go simpler), best and most
> simply described in the form (heh) of two laws, best and most simply
> symbolized as
>
> ()()=()
|
| Show full article (2.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mimusmimus Date: Apr 16, 2008 17:09
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:58:16 -0700, Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On Apr 15, 1:33 pm, mimus hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:01:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 7:20 am, "Suresh M.Sc" gmail.com> wrote:>>
>...
|
| Show full article (3.04Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mimusmimus Date: Apr 16, 2008 17:13
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:14:29 -0700, jonas.thornvall wrote:
> On 15 Apr, 20:33, mimus hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:01:18 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 7:20 am, "Suresh M.Sc" gmail.com> wrote:>>
>> ...
|
| Show full article (1.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike SchillingMike Schilling Date: Apr 16, 2008 17:16
mimus wrote:
> Eh, well, I get lost about the point that people start squabbling
> over
> whether the "set of all sets" exists or not . . . .
No sqabbling: it simply doesn't, at least in the usual ways set
stheory is formalized. (It does in others, e.g. Quine's New
Foundations. )
>
> Intuitively, you'd think that's a pretty darned good definition of
> "the World" or "the Universe", at least from the POV of set-theory,
> but it apparently leads to some more or less abstruse technical
> problems . . . .
Not all that abstruse: look up Russell's Paradox sometime.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: David DeLaneyDavid DeLaney Date: Apr 16, 2008 15:06
Mike Schilling hotmail.com> wrote:>mimus wrote:
>> Eh, well, I get lost about the point that people start squabbling over
>> whether the "set of all sets" exists or not . . . .
>
>No sqabbling: it simply doesn't, at least in the usual ways set
>stheory is formalized. (It does in others, e.g. Quine's New Foundations. )
Right - in the traditional set theory, you can have a "something" of all
sets ("class" is the word I think they use?), but you can't have a "set" of
all sets because it turns out to be too big to fit inside the definition of
'set'. Roughly speaking. You can still talk about it, but you can't use all the
stuff that applies to 'sets' to try to manipulate it or get answers out of it.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@ vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
