The so-called Pythagoreans, who were the first to take up mathematics, not only advanced this subject, but saturated with it, they fancied that the principles of mathematics were the principles of all things. —Aristotle , Metaphysics 1-5 , cc. 350 BC
Pythagorean theorem "The Pythagorean theorem: The sum of the areas of the two squares on the legs (a and b) equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse (c).Since the fourth century AD, Pythagoras has commonly been given credit for discovering the Pythagorean theorem, a theorem in geometry that states that in a right-angled triangle the square of the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle), c, is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, b and a—that is, a2 + b2 = c2. While the theorem that now bears his name was known and previously utilized by the Babylonians and Indians, he, or his students, are often said to have constructed the first proof. It must, however, be stressed that the way in which the Babylonians handled Pythagorean numbers, implies that they knew that the principle was generally applicable, and knew some kind of proof, which has not yet been found in the (still largely unpublished) cuneiform sources." This is where Bo would say that the distinction between intelligence and intellect is the philosophical belief that the principles of mathematics are the principles of all things. ----- Original Message ---- From: X Acto <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 11:32:40 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Language On 9 Feb 2010 at 9:16, Steven Peterson wrote: > Hi Platt, > > > > > If mathematics as a symbolic language doesn't provide an accurate > > > reflection of how the world really is, why does science depend on it and > > why > > > do we benefit so much from it? > > > Hammers and screw drivers are useful tools. Note that we never ask about > them, does this hammer correctly correspond to The-Way-Things-Really-Are? By > the same token, it is not required that we ask such questions about the tool > called mathematics. > Hi Steve, The reason we don't question is because such tools are obviously attuned to the world as it really is. By the same token, we don't question whether swallowing cyanide is injurious to one's health. Best, Platt Ron: This is a perfect illustration to my point. It was with the Pythagoreans that the concept of "substance" emerged. I think RMP's real SOM bogeyman is the Pythagoreans developing into Neopythagoreanism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopythagoreanism The good as the one, encapsulated....fixed...it was'nt Aristotle or Plato it seems... "They went back to the later period of Plato's thought, the period when Plato endeavoured to combine his doctrine of Ideas with the Pythagorean number-theory, and identified the Good with the One, the source of the duality of the Infinite and the Measured with the resultant scale of realities from the One down to the objects of the material world. They emphasized the fundamental distinction between the Soul and the Body." -wiki, neopythagoreanism Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
