Re: Recent anti-semantic advances in Mathematics
- From: "John Jones" <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Dec 2006 12:10:53 -0800
Peter_Smith wrote:
John Jones wrote:
The technical definitions used in mathematics are evolving away from
their originary standard english origins. Technical definitions are now
shorthand for mathematical consistencies. The term 'set' is a case in
point. The term 'concept' is also losing its meaning by conforming to
the demand for consistency. Ultimately, the rise of a technical
language of consisistencies means that any attempt by mathematics to
address the physical world will fail, as mathematics can only address
itself.
What nonsense. The technical definitions of concepts used in physics
are equally evolving away from their "originary" english origins (the
rot no doubt set in with the Newtonian's use of "mass"). Does that mean
that any attempt by physics to address the physical world will fail?
Of course it will fail. Any language that evolves to serve itself can
only serve its own abstractions. Technical languages are by their
naturea private language and incommunicable.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Recent anti-semantic advances in Mathematics
- From: Alan Smaill
- Re: Recent anti-semantic advances in Mathematics
- From: Peter_Smith
- Re: Recent anti-semantic advances in Mathematics
- References:
- Recent anti-semantic advances in Mathematics
- From: John Jones
- Re: Recent anti-semantic advances in Mathematics
- From: Peter_Smith
- Recent anti-semantic advances in Mathematics
- Prev by Date: Re: A Question About Consistent Theories
- Next by Date: Re: A Question About Consistent Theories
- Previous by thread: Re: Recent anti-semantic advances in Mathematics
- Next by thread: Re: Recent anti-semantic advances in Mathematics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
