-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert Holmes wrote: > You are correct, your definition of a mathematician does not include > everyone; however it does include everyone you are likely to meet on > the street. Those who do not "attempt to form rigorous conceptions of > the things around then and use those conceptions to interact the > world" often have difficulty getting out of their houses because (i) > they do not (by definition) have a conception of where their > front-doors are and (ii) even if they do find them they cannot (again > by the above definition) work out how to interact with them.
Buzz! Thanks for playing. [grin] Perhaps we need to clarify the meaning of "rigorous"? "Rigor" means strict or rigid. "Rigorous" means rigidly accurate or precise. I would posit that only a proper subset (odd how math keeps creeping into the conversation) of people one is likely to meet on the street is actually rigorous in their concepts. And even fewer are rigorous in their application of their concepts to the world. I've met many many fuzzy-thinking people on the street. I presume you have too. So, you're wrong. My definition does NOT include everyone you are likely to meet on the street. My definition only includes those people who take their jobs/roles seriously and make strong attempts to be good at what they do. Let's take skaters as an example. Some of them are so precise in their tacit understanding of their board, the surfaces upon which they skate, and their own bodies that they can perform stunts that would send the rest of us to the hospital. Then there are others who simply can't be that rigorous, regardless of how often they try or how intently they try to focus. Now. What does that say about the poor schlubs who can't skate very well? Are they mathematicians? Well, maybe not. Or maybe they're just not good at that _type_ of math. I.e. they are not good at forming rigorous conceptions of skating. But, they might be excellent at some other form, e.g. writing enforceable legislation or cooking. There are plenty of people who are excellent at formulating and manipulating some particular formalisms but notoriously bad at others. Then there are the people who don't seem to think clearly no matter what domain they enter. But there are other ways to get your body to do things in a predictable way without forming and applying rigorously developed conceptions. Much of what we do as animals is learned in the form of the more primitive: habit. It is less about forming concepts and more about receiving positive and negative feedback to govern trial and error. These people can not only get out of the house; but, they can drive cars, work steady jobs, even hold conversations. But, they always fall back on knee-jerk [re]actions to perverse or novel ideas, because knee-jerk reactions work so well for them in their other activities. Can one tell the difference between a mathematician and a trial-by-error person? I think so. We often use words like "professionalism", "competence", and "facile" to get at this boundary. - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com Seek simplicity, and distrust it. -- Alfred North Whitehead -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGgtLgZeB+vOTnLkoRAhfGAKCo/ZmpuzrViLa4o8Ja1ipV6xLfrgCg2v7m BsWB7molwLcDmNNRFLmJQ18= =2c/W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
