Owen Densmore wrote:
Arguing about it is for those of us who cannot understand it.
Hmmm. So no mathematician can also be a philosopher and no philosopher
can also be a mathematician. That's an odd position to take in a
community of inter-disciplinary people. [grin]
I tend to think of all
Owen Densmore wrote:
OK. I now confess it: I love math, and feel its a great, very concrete
(hence mechanical) way to work out things, to understand and press
on. I have not yet found its peer.
Many among us, apparently, feel math is somehow lacking and are
building up a fortress to
I'll attempt to identify the core of the recent Mathematics and XYZ
thread, going back to Nick's original kernel:
Nicholas Thompson wrote:
All, One of the running arguments I have with one of my favorite
colleagues here in Santa Fe is about whether Mathematics is (or
isn't) different from
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
snip
Certainly there is a human tendency to blather on, to speculate, to
pontificate (otherwise blogs and mail lists would never have
emerged?)
about that which we do not understand, but just because we understand
something doesn't prevent
Holy cow Glen, that's GREAT, thanks.
Maybe we should start a tradition of summarizing like this when
threads get rather long. Then Nick can put them into the wiki?
-- Owen
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:08 AM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
I'll attempt to identify the core of the recent
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Owen Densmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No one who accepts mathematics as it is, however, considers it a point
of philosophy. We do not argue about it, we try to grasp it.
Arguing about it is for those of us who cannot understand it.
I suspect a category
Thanks, Glen.
I assume this summary covers the Mentalism and Calculas thread as well?
;-}
--Doug
--
Doug Roberts, RTI International
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
505-455-7333 - Office
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Owen Densmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Holy cow Glen, that's
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Owen Densmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No one who accepts mathematics as it is, however, considers it a
point
of philosophy. We do not argue about it, we try to grasp it.
Arguing about it is for those
..I may have missed a few. That's a LOT of chatter.
Yes there is a lot of chatter, if it weren't for the chorus already
living in my head, perhaps it would be absurdly irritating to me too! grin
Hence Doug and I
becoming confused .. it was pretty hard to follow.
Oh... I misunderstood,
Don't mind me: I'm just trying out for the position of local curmudgeon
(Owen's been slacking in this regard lately).
;-}
--Doug
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:58 AM, glen e. p. ropella [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Douglas Roberts wrote:
I assume this summary covers the Mentalism and Calculas
In my mathematical work which involves testing model graphs as hypotheses in
evolved, recurrent neural networks,
Gödel's first theorem states that there may be true models that cannot be
proven as true in a formal axiomatic system. Thus, truth is an
underdetermined state when it comes to the
Owen,
No one who accepts mathematics as it is, however, considers it a point
of philosophy. We do not argue about it, we try to grasp it.
I know what you mean, but that what you are talking about is people
trying to grasp what theorems follow from given axioms; or what theorems
mean;
Again (I hit the pad on my new Macbook and it sent out the e before it was
finished.)
Nick I believe that math, as is the case with any intellectual tool, has
evolved and changed. For example: the development of calculus or algorithms
or
imaginary numbers
Paul
**
Get the
Ken,
proven as true in a formal axiomatic system. Thus, truth is an
underdetermined state when it comes to the application of enumerable
It is always important to say here that truth in respect to Gödel is a
mathematical notion (relationship structure/model and formal system), it
is often
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Günther Greindl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are perfectly complete and and consistent axiomatic systems.
(propositional calculus); heck, even the mega-expressive first order
logic (see the completeness theorem).
15 matches
Mail list logo
