Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 9th, 2017, 12:54 PM   #31
Joined: Jun 2015
From: Scotland
Posts: 1,112

Originally Posted by constantine View Post
Whether you say 9+1=10, 9+1=A, IX+I=X, θ+α=ι, S(9)=10, etc. is really just a matter of convention. The truly profound realization is, to borrow from Peano's axioms, that for any natural number n there exists a number S(n) (the successor of n), which is also a natural number and is distinct from n. And that says something fundamental about the set of the natural numbers.
I was too slow
WITSEND is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 9th, 2017, 01:37 PM   #32
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,545

Originally Posted by WITSEND View Post
In some circles this is a bit old hat but we are always learning I suppose and my view may well be wrong or incomplete. You could look at it as pure mathematicians prove theorems and applied mathematicians construct theories. While I would suggest one is easy to reconsile with the world we see the other is no less routed in reality. It is our understanding of reality that is insufficient to place some theorems within it or recognise their significance.
The real difference between applied and theoretical mathematicians is not in the nature of their work but in the motivation for their work. Pure mathematicians find a mathematical problem they regard as interesting and try to construct a proof or discover a counter-example. Applied mathematicians take a problem from another discipline, generally science or engineering, then they try to develop mathematical tools to solve this problem and prove that these tools are mathematically valid. At the end of the day, both are proving theorems in the same manner, it's just a question of where they came up with these theorems.

As for the, shall we call it, 'friendly competition' between applied and pure mathematicians, it's not really based on the quality of the mathematics done by one side or the other. Rather, there's a sense amongst certain theoretical mathematicians that the field is corrupted by being associated, even indirectly, with more vulgar fields, like the sciences, which admit observation as a source of knowledge rather than relying on pure logic and nothing else, as mathematicians do. It's really doesn't matter what the inspiration is for theorems, provided they can be mathematically proven to be true, the friendly competition just a way to demonstrate a philosophical mistrust of the sciences, combined, of course, with professional snobbery.

With all that said, I am a Mathematical Platonist. So I do agree that mathematics is firmly rooted in reality, in fact I think it's far more rooted in reality than our universe, which is merely a shadow of one out of an infinite number of possible realities.

Last edited by constantine; January 9th, 2017 at 01:42 PM.
constantine is offline  
Old January 9th, 2017, 01:43 PM   #33

Willempie's Avatar
Joined: Jul 2015
From: Netherlands
Posts: 3,837

Originally Posted by constantine View Post
If you want a proof of God, try Godel's Ontological Proof:

It relies on modal logic and the relationship between contingent truth and necessary truth. I can attest that it's a valid proof, but I will not speculate on the consistency of the axioms or the the implications. Nor will I pretend that I have fully got my head around modal logic.
I never got round that area of math.
It hurts us
Willempie is online now  
Old January 9th, 2017, 03:26 PM   #34

Bishop's Avatar
Joined: Mar 2012
From: City of Angels
Posts: 1,535

There was a book that came out several years ago I really enjoyed It was basically like the life of Pi, about a scientist going insane trying to discover the infinite. The Mystery of the Aleph: Mathematics, the Kabbalah, and the Search for Infinity by Amir D. Aczel ? Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

I find interesting that so much of math is based on essential and fundamental geometric proofs. The equations in the book are a bit over my head, set theory and the concept of the infinite and such. But from what i gathered much of it is based on the simple geometric proof of a cube emerging from a single point, and that's where it sort of transcends just being math. That we can prove geometrically that 3-dimensional objects such as ourselves can emerge from a single point of existence, or something to that effect.

Last edited by Bishop; January 9th, 2017 at 03:29 PM.
Bishop is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 01:01 AM   #35
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Wirral
Posts: 4,130

Originally Posted by Willempie View Post
Proof of god
Click the image to open in full size.
Well the calculator on my phone didn't come up with that.
GogLais is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 01:20 AM   #36

Willempie's Avatar
Joined: Jul 2015
From: Netherlands
Posts: 3,837

Originally Posted by GogLais View Post
Well the calculator on my phone didn't come up with that.
Never underestimate the powers of imaginary pies...
Willempie is online now  
Old January 10th, 2017, 04:28 PM   #37

schmitt trigger's Avatar
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Texas
Posts: 327

There are 10 types of people in this world;
Those who understand binary mathematics and those who don't....:-)
Old engineering joke.
schmitt trigger is offline  
Old January 10th, 2017, 04:30 PM   #38

schmitt trigger's Avatar
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Texas
Posts: 327

Now seriously, I have always been awed by the computational power of logarithms
schmitt trigger is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 06:10 AM   #39

Naomasa298's Avatar
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,540

Originally Posted by athena View Post
It is so awesome! What we can do with imaginary numbers and pi is totally mind blowing.
Pi is not an imaginary number - it's a ratio, and pretty fundamental to engineering and architecture.

Naomasa298 is offline  
Old January 11th, 2017, 07:56 AM   #40

DaveK's Avatar
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Tampa, FL
Posts: 882

New here, but I hope you don't mind me blabbing on my area of expertise, since this is a recent thread. (I came to history through math, oddly enough).

I'm also a big podcast guy. One thing you might like is this podcast from the BBC on the history of mathematics.

I personally wouldn't use equations as markings for important ideas in mathematics. In fact, if you consider an equation as something with symbols like plus, minus and equals in it (it is possible to think of them differently) then equations didn't exist until 1557!

I would rather use the names of individuals (I suppose the "great man/woman" approach) or publications like Euclid's elements as important markers of mathematics's influence on the world.

I could say infinitely more but I will pause here.

-Dave K
DaveK is offline  

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

changed, equations

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Criminals that changed the world for the better Sharks and love General History 28 June 22nd, 2015 12:15 AM
How has the world changed since you were born? RoyalHill1987 General History 63 December 9th, 2014 07:58 AM
Events in World History That Changed the World PericlesTheRon General History 12 April 20th, 2013 12:56 PM
Books that Changed the World ? Mohammed the Persian General History 65 August 27th, 2011 03:03 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.