On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 01:54:24PM -0800, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Mathematics is precise.
> That's why we use mathematics. What took me a paragraph to say is > probably about 20 mathematical glyphs. Mathematical papers are only precise when they are expressed in first order predicate calculus (or equivalent) which no one ever does. Instead, everyone relies on a base of common knowledge to avoid all that detail. It that "assumed implicit understanding" I'm focusing on. I still stand by my claim about the chain rule. We both agree it is *possible* to express it in precise first order predicate calculus (or python or scheme or Mathematica, or Matlab or ...) but that is not what intro to calculus books do. To repeat again, mathematics *can* be precise and *wants* to be precise but as communicated in mathematical *glyphs* as you say just isn't. It relies on lots of background info. Chris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
