51–60 of 220 posts
This reminds of of that one time when I was on a date with a girl from the history department who somehow bemusedly sat through my entire mini-lecture on comparing infinite sets. Twenty years and three kids later, she'll still occasionally look me straight in the eye and declare "my infinity is bigger than your infinity."
Once I taught the binomial coefficient formula to a girl after sex
This reminds of of that one time when I was on a date with a girl from the history department who somehow bemusedly sat through my entire mini-lecture on comparing infinite sets. Twenty years and three kids later, she'll still occasionally look me straight in the eye and declare "my infinity is bigger than your infinity."
Once I taught the binomial coefficient formula to a girl after sex
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could turn the argument around and say that math must be a science because it builds on falsifiable hypotheses and makes testable predictions. In the end arguing about whether mathematics is a science or not makes no more sense than bickering about tomates being fruit; can be answered both yes and no using reasonable definitions.
In general you aren't testing as an empiricist though, you are looking for a rational argument to prove or disprove something.
Mathematicians actually do the same thing as scientists: hypothesis building by extensive investigation of examples. Looking for examples which catch the boundary of established knowledge and try to break existing assumptions, etc. The difference comes after that in the nature of the concluding argument. A scientist performs experiments to validate or refute the hypothesis, establishing scientific proof (a kind of conditional or statistical truth required only to hold up to certain conditions, those upon which the claim was tested). A mathematician finds and writes a proof or creates a counter example.
The failure of logical positivism and the rise of Popperian philosophy is obviously correct that we can't approach that end process in the natural sciences the way we do for maths, but the practical distinction between the subjects is not so clear.
This is all without mention the much tighter coupling between the two modes of investigation at the boundary between maths and science in subjects like theoretical physics. There the line blurs almost completely and a major tool used by genuine physicists is literally purusiing mathematical consistency in their theories. This has been used to tremendous success (GR, Yang-Mills, the weak force) and with some difficulties (string theory).
————
Einstein understood all this:
> If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay, more, has this right way any existence outside our illusions? Can we hope to be guided safely by experience at all when there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extent do justice to experience, without getting to the root of the matter? I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realisation of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover by means of purely mathematical constructions the concepts and the laws connecting them with each other, which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts, but they most certainly cannot be deduced from it. Experience remains, of course, the sole criterion of the physical utility of a mathematical construction. But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed. - Albert Einstein
I personally cannot wrap my head around Cantor's infinitary ideas, but I'm sure it makes perfect sense to people with better mathematical intuition than me.
>Today, mathematics is regarded as an abstract science. Pure mathematics is regarded as an abstract science, which it is by definition . Arnol'd argued vehemently and much more convincingly for the viewpoint that all mathematics is (and must be) linked to the natural sciences. >On forums such as Stack Exchange, trained mathematicians may sneer at newcomers who ask for intuitive explanations of mathematical constructs…
I may be off-base as an outsider to mathematics, but Euclid’s Elements, per my understanding, is very much grounded in the physical reality of the shapes and relationships he describes, if you were to physically construct them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pure mathematics is regarded as an abstract science, which it is by definition. I'd argue that, by definition, mathemtatics is not, and cannot be, a science. Mathematics deals with provable truths, science cannot prove truth and must deal falsifiability instead.
Pure mathematics is just symbol pushing and can never be science. It is lot of fun though and as it turned out occasionally pretty useful for science.
The "symbol pushing" is a methodological tool, and a very useful one that opened up the possibility of new expansive fields of mathematics.
(Of course, it is important to always distinguish between properties of the abstraction or the tool from the object of study.)
This reminds of of that one time when I was on a date with a girl from the history department who somehow bemusedly sat through my entire mini-lecture on comparing infinite sets. Twenty years and three kids later, she'll still occasionally look me straight in the eye and declare "my infinity is bigger than your infinity."
Once I taught the binomial coefficient formula to a girl after sex
"A mathematician is a person who can find analogies between theorems; a better mathematician is one who can see analogies between proofs and the best mathematician can notice analogies between theories. One can imagine that the ultimate mathematician is one who can see analogies between analogies."
-- Stefan Banach
How has mathematics gotten so abstract? My understanding was that mathematics was abstract from the very beginning . Sure, you can say that two cows plus two more cows makes four cows, but that already is an abstraction - someone who has no knowledge of math might object that one cow is rarely exactly the same as another cow, so just assigning the value "1" to any cow you see is an oversimplification. Of course, simp…
Leibniz (late 1600s) helped to popularize negative numbers. At the time most mathematicians thought they were "absurd" and "fictitious".
No, not highly abstract from the beginning.