Notices
Results 1 to 30 of 30
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By forrest noble

Thread: Logic, Math, and Theory

  1. #1 Logic, Math, and Theory 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    21
    I know already that theoreticians usemathematics with research, how I donít know. I know that pure mathematics andapplied mathematics work together by just making purely mathematical ideas thatcan later be found to be useful in physics, and since mathematics is a languageyou use in order to deal with how many ever mathematical parts of the wholeprocess of experiment and theory, the more ways you can think of the data,because the more ways you have of describing something with ordinary languageyou will have more ways to handle and thus think about whatever you are talkingabout. Mathematics is the language that physics is spoken in and that meansthat the more pure math you can develop and have sitting on the shelf (so tospeak), the more possibly you will be able to have in describing new ideas inphysics right away. How does logic work in general and in physics?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    I think math is a way or language to describe some natural phenomenon. This means we need to know the phenomenon first, then describe it. For example, we have an orange, we can measure its size, weight act. Then use these data to describe it. If you just know these data, we cannot say it is orange or not. Modern physics has the same problem. Physicists try to use math to find what the world is. They get many equation by complex math. But they are not very clear about some basic concepts. For example, they use energy, momentum, mass and some others in their equation all the time. But nobody gives a clear explanation what of those thing is.
    Logic is formed based on human's experience. It can be changed with new experience. Since our world is related, some observable phenomena is the reflection of the hidden phenomena, logic plays an important role in research.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    For example, they use energy, momentum, mass and some others in their equation all the time. But nobody gives a clear explanation what of those thing is.
    I don't really know what your point of contention is, but each one of these terms is well defined.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Initially, when we introduced these concepts, they looked well defined. But with the use of modern physics, we have to be more specific. For example, energy can cause change. How is energy involved in material change? Is it conservative in all circumstances? The same applies to momentum.
    For mass, if we have object A and object B with masses MA and MB. We can conclude MA=nMB based on current physics. Then what does this simple equation mean for material? If A and B are composed with different basic components, how can their masses be compared? If we can compare them, then their masses are composed of the same material.

    I have a full discussion of this topic in my book Unified Theory of Matter. If you are interested and would like a free copy, you can email me at Mod note: link deleted
    Last edited by Guitarist; November 18th, 2012 at 01:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    How is energy involved in material change? Is it conservative in all circumstances? The same applies to momentum.
    Yes. They are both conserved. For fairly obvious reasons: Noether's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If A and B are composed with different basic components, how can their masses be compared? If we can compare them, then their masses are composed of the same material.
    Why would the material they are compared of be relevant? A weighing scale can balance 1kg of feathers with 1kg of lead. The masses are identical.

    I have a full discussion of this topic in my book
    Please stop spamming your book in every thread. If you want to discuss your ideas, why not do it here. This is, after all, a discussion forum.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    Is it conservative in all circumstances?
    I presume you mean conserved. Yes, total energy is always conserved.

    If A and B are composed with different basic components, how can their masses be compared?
    Mass is just a form of energy; you can always compare the energy content of two given systems.
    As for materials, under everyday laboratory conditions mass is simply a function of volume and density - both of these are easily measurable. So why would the masses of different materials not be comparable ? What nonsense !

    If we can compare them, then their masses are composed of the same material.
    The mass of the air in an average sized living room is comparable to that of an adult human. Does that mean they are composed of the same material ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    Is it conservative in all circumstances?
    I presume you mean conserved. Yes, total energy is always conserved.

    If A and B are composed with different basic components, how can their masses be compared?
    Mass is just a form of energy; you can always compare the energy content of two given systems.
    As for materials, under everyday laboratory conditions mass is simply a function of volume and density - both of these are easily measurable. So why would the masses of different materials not be comparable ? What nonsense !

    If we can compare them, then their masses are composed of the same material.
    The mass of the air in an average sized living room is comparable to that of an adult human. Does that mean they are composed of the same material ?
    This actually touches the diference between mass and weight. Mass is how much material a body has. Even though this has been clarified in the very early stage of physics, it is mixed up in many physics equation. For example, if an object has two basic components, how can we compare them? You can define some amount of one material as 1kg. What about the other material?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    This actually touches the diference between mass and weight. Mass is how much material a body has. Even though this has been clarified in the very early stage of physics, it is mixed up in many physics equation. For example, if an object has two basic components, how can we compare them? You can define some amount of one material as 1kg. What about the other material?
    Again, why would the material matter. 1 kg is 1 kg is 1 kg.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    This actually touches the diference between mass and weight. Mass is how much material a body has. Even though this has been clarified in the very early stage of physics, it is mixed up in many physics equation. For example, if an object has two basic components, how can we compare them? You can define some amount of one material as 1kg. What about the other material?
    Again, why would the material matter. 1 kg is 1 kg is 1 kg.
    You need to think about what our research is targeted at? What is our world made up of? Everything is material. All the changes and interactions are caused by the material's own properties. We have to understand what the material is , then understand what energy is and what other physics concepts mean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    For example, if an object has two basic components, how can we compare them?
    By their ratios of course - come on now, this is primary school physics ?!

    You can define some amount of one material as 1kg. What about the other material?
    The other one either has more mass or less mass or the exact same mass. So what ?

    We have to understand what the material is , then understand what energy is and what other physics concepts mean.
    None of which has anything to do with masses not being comparable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Again, why would the material matter. 1 kg is 1 kg is 1 kg.
    You need to think about what our research is targeted at? What is our world made up of? Everything is material. All the changes and interactions are caused by the material's own properties. We have to understand what the material is , then understand what energy is and what other physics concepts mean.
    Which doesn't answer the question at all. Mass is defined independently of the material it is made off. So why would the material be relevant?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Again, why would the material matter. 1 kg is 1 kg is 1 kg.
    You need to think about what our research is targeted at? What is our world made up of? Everything is material. All the changes and interactions are caused by the material's own properties. We have to understand what the material is , then understand what energy is and what other physics concepts mean.
    Which doesn't answer the question at all. Mass is defined independently of the material it is made off. So why would the material be relevant?
    you use mass to describe material. How can you isolate mass from it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    For example, if an object has two basic components, how can we compare them?
    By their ratios of course - come on now, this is primary school physics ?!

    You can define some amount of one material as 1kg. What about the other material?

    The other one either has more mass or less mass or the exact same mass. So what ?

    We have to understand what the material is , then understand what energy is and what other physics concepts mean.
    None of which has anything to do with masses not being comparable.

    This is the same mistake of comparing apple and orange. How could you compare different things? Mass means some amount of material.
    It should include both what it is and how much in it. Most physicist just use how much in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    you use mass to describe material. How can you isolate mass from it?
    Because, as you fail to understand, 1 kg of feathers has the same mass as 1 kg of lead. If you think this is not true then please explain why, with reference to suitable scientific sources.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    This is the same mistake of comparing apple and orange. How could you compare different things? Mass means some amount of material.
    It should include both what it is and how much in it. Most physicist just use how much in it.
    You clearly don't know what you are talking about. If your orange has a mass of 100 grams and your apple has a mass of 100 grams, then they have the same mass.

    If you think this is not true then please explain why, with reference to suitable scientific sources supporting your argument.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    you use mass to describe material. How can you isolate mass from it?
    Because, as you fail to understand, 1 kg of feathers has the same mass as 1 kg of lead. If you think this is not true then please explain why, with reference to suitable scientific sources.
    First, you are talking about weight, not mass. Second, feather and lead may made up by the same basic material. Otherwise, how can you compare them? If you do not know what is in an objective. How do you know it is 1kg or not? You may say by experiment. But your experiment is based upon an unclear definition about mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    First, you are talking about weight, not mass.
    No I am not. I am talking about mass.

    Stop just repeating the same idiotic assertions. If you are unable to provide any support for your ridiculous claims then you should just admit that you don't know what you are talking about. There is no shame in that.

    Perhaps you could start a thread to ask some questions about basic physics and start learning. It's quite a journey!
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,003
    I am a layman, but I just can not see the point in arguing with this dude.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    I think you might be right. Just another deluded ignoramus...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    He's promoting a book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by jyutao View Post
    Mass means some amount of material.
    This is not correct, and here's where the root cause of your misconception lies. Mass has nothing to do with "material", it is officially defined as a "quantitative measure of a system's resistance to acceleration". As such you can without problem compare different objects of different materials, because all of these possess inertia.

    But your experiment is based upon an unclear definition about mass.
    The definition of mass is very clear - see above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    This is not correct, and here's where the root cause of your misconception lies. Mass has nothing to do with "material", it is officially defined as a "quantitative measure of a system's resistance to acceleration". As such you can without problem compare different objects of different materials, because all of these possess inertia.


    The definition of mass is very clear - see above.
    For the lurking readers:
    These definitions are the basis of why scientific measurement, that yields verifiable and repeatable results, allowing us to list properties that can be looked up in a textbook simply works. The science works. This is why your computer works, your iPhone works and your internet works. Because of clear definitions.
    For one who tries to muddy the waters, to make the definitions unclear in order to promote their own agenda, they are disregarding the scientific method for ego.
    This is why their ideas often times, do not work. It's why their ideas are not bought at high price by companies that wish to market technology for profit.
    There is no profit in failure. There is no profit in products that do not work.

    The only profit to be gleaned from this is in marketing a sham book, that suckers might pay for. A real inventor would build the machine and sell them for a high price, not sell a low price book on how others can build it.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Jackie1,

    Logic, Math, and Theory

    I know already that theoreticians use mathematics with research, how I don’t know. I know that pure mathematics and applied mathematics work together by just making purely mathematical ideas that can later be found to be useful in physics, and since mathematics is a language you use in order to deal with how many ever mathematical parts of the whole process of experiment and theory, the more ways you can think of the data, because the more ways you have of describing something with ordinary language you will have more ways to handle and thus think about whatever you are talking about. Mathematics is the language that physics is spoken in and that means that the more pure math you can develop and have sitting on the shelf (so to speak), the more possibly you will be able to have in describing new ideas in physics right away. How does logic work in general and in physics?
    Mathematics is the language of physics and is involved in almost every type of science. To make quantitative predictions you need to know how to use math, and physics is primarily mathematical formulations. Many or most Physics formulas although mathematical, its equations cannot be proven valid. It's simply a matter of application. If predictions are verified by observation then the math is considered valid unless it somehow could be shown to be invalid. Fundamental physics such as Newton's mechanics and Maxwell's equations of magnetism are considered fundamental, often referred to as "first principles." Other physics are often derived and based upon such first-principles equations. Even first-principles equations involve tacit and sometimes stated assumptions. Some assumptions are also called principles but have not be proven. Many of such assumptions might someday be proven, and maybe some will later be shown to involve exceptions or even contradicted.

    Most all well-known equations in physics today are believed to be on sound footing, and have a valid basis for their formulations.

    Mathematics also has many theories concerning its basis. Some have proposed that mathematics is not the best foundation for predictive formulations and that programming loops of various sorts are more suited for the task. The problem, of course, would be the difficulty in showing the validity concerning the basis for the program, other than just a history of observations.
    How does logic work in general and in physics?
    Logic has its own rules based upon sequential reasoning. The major types of recognized logic are based upon linguistic sequential reasoning. The primary types of reasoning in logic are, deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. The scientific method requires a sequence of reasoning involving logic. There are also many types and classifications of false logic, or pseudo-logic which are necessary to learn concerning the study of logic.

    Mathematics has its own system of logic to verify that math is self consistent such as in a set of mutually reinforcing equations. There are also other types of logic in math such as Symbolic Logic, Aritotelean Logic, Predicate calculus, Fuzzy Logic, and others.

    The need and use of logic in science and mathematics is usually clear, with some well-known possible exceptions.

    There is no exact definition for the word "theory" concerning science in general but a generally accepted definition would be similar to this:

    A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

    Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 20th, 2012 at 07:37 PM.
    sigurdV likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    This is not correct, and here's where the root cause of your misconception lies. Mass has nothing to do with "material", it is officially defined as a "quantitative measure of a system's resistance to acceleration". As such you can without problem compare different objects of different materials, because all of these possess inertia.

    The definition of mass is very clear - see above.
    For the lurking readers:
    These definitions are the basis of why scientific measurement, that yields verifiable and repeatable results, allowing us to list properties that can be looked up in a textbook simply works. The science works. This is why your computer works, your iPhone works and your internet works. Because of clear definitions.
    For one who tries to muddy the waters, to make the definitions unclear in order to promote their own agenda, they are disregarding the scientific method for ego.
    This is why their ideas often times, do not work. It's why their ideas are not bought at high price by companies that wish to market technology for profit.
    There is no profit in failure. There is no profit in products that do not work.

    The only profit to be gleaned from this is in marketing a sham book, that suckers might pay for. A real inventor would build the machine and sell them for a high price, not sell a low price book on how others can build it.
    Hey Nev, what's up my friend
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Hey Nev, what's up my friend
    I vaguely remember you from BAUT, I think... but it's been a few years and being an old curmudgeon such as myself, I recall little.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Hey Nev, what's up my friend
    I vaguely remember you from BAUT, I think... but it's been a few years and being an old curmudgeon such as myself, I recall little.
    Yup, it's me. Looking forward to future conversations with you again. I may be old too but will not admit to being a curmudgeon as yet

    I never perceived you as being a curmudgeon either, more like a hell raiser like me -- except that I am less overtly confrontational.


    best regards
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 21st, 2012 at 12:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Many or most Physics formulas although mathematical, its equations cannot be proven valid.
    With notable exceptions. For example, the inverse square law ( within its domain of applicability ) is a direct consequence of the geometry of space, and can be derived purely mathematically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Many or most Physics formulas although mathematical, its equations cannot be proven valid.
    With notable exceptions. For example, the inverse square law ( within its domain of applicability ) is a direct consequence of the geometry of space, and can be derived purely mathematically.
    Yes. I was mostly referring to the math of quantum physics here as an exception, meaning that formulations cannot be derived from math or first principles relating to Quantum Mechanics, Quark Theory, and Particle physics (standard model). I totally agree that the inverse square law of light, gravity, and magnetism as a point source, all can be derived from the changes in diameter of the source and/or to the surface area of a sphere. Likewise the inverse cube law of magnetism relates to the mass of the source as the mass relates to its volume.

    Some or maybe the majority of macro-physics formulations can be derived mathematically or by first principles.

    Two Ernest Rutherford Quotes:

    Concerning physics: "If you can't explain your physics to a barmaid it is probably not very good physics."

    Concerning theory: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good."

    These quotes and related principles I believe are still valid today

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford
    Last edited by forrest noble; November 21st, 2012 at 03:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackie1 View Post
    I know already that theoreticians usemathematics with research, how I donít know. I know that pure mathematics andapplied mathematics work together by just making purely mathematical ideas thatcan later be found to be useful in physics, and since mathematics is a languageyou use in order to deal with how many ever mathematical parts of the wholeprocess of experiment and theory, the more ways you can think of the data,because the more ways you have of describing something with ordinary languageyou will have more ways to handle and thus think about whatever you are talkingabout. Mathematics is the language that physics is spoken in and that meansthat the more pure math you can develop and have sitting on the shelf (so tospeak), the more possibly you will be able to have in describing new ideas inphysics right away. How does logic work in general and in physics?
    In practice, that isn't how it works. Most of the mathematics used in natural sciences are thought of by physicists. Since they use it much more. Then later on, the formal mathematical proof is found. This can take up to decades to actually find. Often physicists make up their own mathematics, and then leave it to the mathematicians to solve it formally. For instance a Delta-Dirac function. And a large amount of other theorems.

    The thing is, we (physicists) need mathematics of a certain sort. And therefore we walk side by side with mathematicians in the first few years of our education. But as the mathematician go to a direction of the formal proofs etc. And more into the banking region. We excell at the applied part of mathematics.

    Logic, isn't a real part of mathematics. It is a separate science by itself. And if done correctly, you can proof stuff just using factual knowledge without knowing anything about the subject itself! There are several sorts and forms of logic. The most known is classical logic. But in reality and physics this breaks down quickly. For instance not ( not (A)) does not equal A. For instance what if A is uncertain, what if A is 'maybe'. If something is not maybe, it is obviously no. If you might be pregnant and the answer is no, then you are not pregnant. But not no is yes, and so not ( not (maybe)) = yes. And this is wrong. For this reason science mostly uses multi-valued logic. Which is as common as chicken filet. But not everyone knows about it, as it is a poorly taught field of science. It is however very accessible since it doesn't require much or any pre-knowledge of other science not even mathematics. Brouwer is a very good logicist, look up some of his works.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Math as a language has a strange idea of language.
    It,s just another notation for language with the same notation covering many other languages.
    For instance one, eins, uno .... : all has 1 as math notation.
    But a mathclass is not a different country where people speak different language then outside the classroom and it doesn,t have a unicque math pronounce for 1 or x or / as all these languages have. I learned to read 1 as short for ťťn. In us you learn to read it as short for one.
    I learned to read math but I can,t speak math with a chinese mathematician I meet in a train.
    That would be necessary to make it a language.
    Offcourse we could use paper and pen for communicating in math notation. But it,s just a language notation then not language because language can,t do without speech.
    We speak different language but use a notation that we both understand in our own language.
    So we can communicate with that notation to some extend. But still communication is not language. Painting and music would all be language then also.
    A penguin can,t be half a penguin beit purple or any other colour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: April 15th, 2012, 08:54 AM
  2. number circle theory... what branch of math is this?
    By TiGeRmOo in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2010, 01:14 PM
  3. What series of Math topics to understand String Theory ?
    By MohaveBiologist in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 24th, 2009, 02:56 PM
  4. Digital Logic Vs. Quantum logic
    By Truth_Table in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2007, 01:43 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •