Nick, Is programming a mathematical formalism? No. I know that when I'm cranking out Python scripts I am not doing any math. Is computer science a mathematical formalism? Yes. When I'm trying to work out whether my algorithm scales as N**2 or N.log.N, I'm doing math.
For an enlightening (and more than a little provocative) discussion of this difference, check out Mooney's "Computing as an Experimental Science or Exaggerated Formalist Rhetoric Considered Harmful" at http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~mooney/talks/expCS.ppt Robert On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ever since I first came to Santa Fe, and joined the extensive computation > culture here, I felt I have detected in the software people here something > equivalent to the physics- envy that we psychologists are prone to: let's > call it math-envy. Math-Envy seems to be that while programming is subject > to the vicissitudes of any linguistic enterprise, mathematics displays true > formalism.... "you always know where you stand" in mathematics. > > The more I have read ... most recently Rosen, Reuben Hersh, George Laykof, > Monk's biolography of Wittgenstein --- the more it seems that the best one > can say of mathematics is that "If you know where you are standing in > mathematics, you know where you stand" in mathematics. Take Zero for > instance, and minus numbers, and roots of minus numbers, etc., etc. All of > these things are metaphoric extensions and, as Laykof points out, in fact > zero is different depending on which of several metaphors one has in mind > when one is using it. Thus, the sense of safety one gets in mathematics > comes from the tendancy of mathematicians to hide out in deep silos, rather > than from a greater power or universality of their inter-silo discourse. > It is the same sense of safety that one gets in any monastery. Or, I > imagine, that one gets from deep involvement in any programming language. > > Now, the proposition having been stated so baldly -- and no doubt ineptly > -- by an outsider, I suspect that ALL mathematicians on the list will now > agree that the case has been OVER stated and that, whatever the differences > in degree of formalism within the various forms of mathematics, all > mathematics is clearer than other forms of argument, such as plain old > vanilla philosophy, or, say, experiment and proof in psychology. Getting > you all to agree in this way will have been my highest achievement of the > day. > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 >
============================================================ 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
