🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4723@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) writes:
< In article <4039@killer.UUCP> loci@killer.UUCP (loci!clb) writes:
< 
< >Computers are mathematical, and operate best on these problem,
< >much less well on poetry, literature, ...
< 
< This is a common fallacy, that computers are inherently mathematical.
< Mathematics is simply one way of abstracting what a computer does.  All
< computers do is some electonic signal manipulations.  Anything else we say
< about them is an abstraction or model of what they do.

	No no! Look at the machine language for ANY processor on the market
	today: they include mathematical operations like add, subtract,
	and, or, xor, cmp, etc. Anything else you think you see isn't
	there. COMPUTERS ARE MATHEMATICAL. How you abstract what a computer
	does is irrelevant.
< 
< >This isn't right. I have any number of books dealing with
< >mathematical subjects (physics, astronomy, economics, etc.)
< >and they are written in mathematics. The English merely
< 
< This isn't right, either.  A number of professionally videotaped courses in
< these subjects are done using actors who usually understand next to nothing
< about mathematics, yet I could learn more from these tapes than from most
< of my teachers in college.

	I've see some of them and they are FULL of errors. It seems to
	be the fashion to try to use art to avoid true understanding of
	scientific subjects but you can't learn more than the artist
	knows from them, and worse, you are infected with the errors.
	The main advantage of mathematics is the precise way that
	concepts can be expressed. 
< 
< If you believe that these subjects are written in 'mathematics', then I
< propose an experiment for you.  Find some advanced physics topic that
< you don't know, buy a book about it that is written in a foreign
< language that you don't know, and try to learn the topic.  Then come
< back to the net and explain why you couldn't learn it.
< 
	I did just that: I learned the relativity of gravity from
	German, which I don't read. You best watch out underestimating
	what determined students of science are capable of (doing).

< In order to understand the things you call 'mathematical subjects', you
< need both mathematics *and* English.  An analogy to this is buying a
< newspaper and reading a caption of a picture they forgot to print or
< seeing a picture without the caption.  Neither of these circumstances 
< tells the whole story; you need BOTH the picture and the caption.
< 
	Cute. Analogies now? I suggest that you throw out you video-
	tapes, and picture books and learn some mathematics from
	your professors: they try very hard to get through to their
	students, even the deliberately dense.

< BTW, I learned mathematics (specifically calculus) from physics, not the
< other way around.  In my calculus class, we learned how to solve
< integrals; in physics, we learn how to set them up and what they
< meant.

	BTW: I also learned from physics, for which I received a
	degree in 1969. Don't think that I stopped learning it then.
	In fact I am still learning more physics, astronomy and other
	scientific subjects.
< 
< >The "fascination" is the usefulness in describing real-world
< >processes. Operations in mathematics aren't used just to
< >make something complicated: they are used because they model
< >natural events and problems in a way that simplifies their
< >understanding. Formal logic is less real-world, more like
< >an effort on the part of people to model the world in their
< >terms.
< 
< From formal logic (and computablility) branch of mathematics come the
< theoretical description of what we call a computer.  Does this mean
< that computers are less real-world? :-)

	Electrical engineers designed computers: logicians sat around
	and proved that it couldn't be done. You seem to have a serious
	hole in your knowledge of the history of these subjects. Next
	time you decide to flame somebody for expressing an opinion,
	make sure you know that facts.
< 
< >The problem most people have with mathematics is the same as
< >anything else: it is unfamiliar and thus intimidating. If
< >you're looking for something simple, then you find something
< >with little power. To do complex problem, you've got to roll
< >up your sleeves and work at it. Not because the method is
< >hard, but because the world is complex. 
< 
< I got a pretty good score on the last two Putnam exams I took (especially
< for someone who was never a math major); I think this qualifies me as being
< familiar with mathematics.  To solve a complex problem, you have to break
< it up into smaller, more manageable problems.  Whether I use mathematics or
< another tool, this depends entirely on the problem.

	And your ego is bigger than your test scores. Big deal. I've
	never been too impressed that brag on the one hand and demonstrate
	their ignorance on the other. "Actions speak louder than words".
< 
< >One more thing. Notation is a problem with mathematics because
< >the ASCII character set is too simple (small) to allow
< >the expression of mathematical operations in a natural way.
< >Just try to get tensor calculus to squeeze into ASCII.
< 
< Yes, but since mathematical notation is extensible, you can NEVER have
< enough symbols to allow the expression of mathematical operations in a
< natural way.

	Is there any point to this, or are you still on a high horse?
< 
< 
< Mathematics is a very powerful *formal* language.  Until someone can show
< otherwise (by implementing the language of mathematics), I maintain that it
< /  (_</_\/ <__/ / <_	These are solely MY opinions, not AT&T's, blah blah blah
	First thing to do to solve this problem is to educate people
	in mathematics. Then it may be possible to find good algorithms
	to solve differential equations in a programmable language.
	The lack of knowledge at present may be a problem to some,
	but every problem is also an opportunity for progress.

-- 
				clb@loci.uucp (CLBrunow)