info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Matheology § 044
7 views
Skip to first unread message
WM
Jun 20, 2012, 2:40:47 AM6/20/12
to
Matheology § 044
Mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science,
a part of natural science. Mathematics is the part of physics where
experiments are cheap.
The Jacobi identity (which forces the heights of a triangle to cross
at one point) is an experimental fact in the same way as that the
Earth is round (that is, homeomorphic to a ball). But it can be
discovered with less expense.
In the middle of the twentieth century it was attempted to divide
physics and mathematics. The consequences turned out to be
catastrophic. Whole generations of mathematicians grew up without
knowing half of their science and, of course, in total ignorance of
any other sciences. They first began teaching their ugly scholastic
pseudo-mathematics to their students, then to schoolchildren
(forgetting Hardy's warning that ugly mathematics has no permanent
place under the Sun).
Since scholastic mathematics that is cut off from physics is fit
neither for teaching nor for application in any other science, the
result was the universal hate towards mathematicians - both on the
part of the poor schoolchildren (some of whom in the meantime became
ministers) and of the users.
The ugly building, built by undereducated mathematicians who were
exhausted by their inferiority complex and who were unable to make
themselves familiar with physics [...] predominated in the teaching of
mathematics for decades. Having originated in France, this
pervertedness quickly spread to teaching of foundations of
mathematics, first to university students, then to school pupils of
all lines (first in France, then in other countries, including
Russia).
To the question "what is 2 + 3" a French primary school pupil replied:
"3 + 2, since addition is commutative". He did not know what the sum
was equal to and could not even understand what he was asked about!
Another French pupil (quite rational, in my opinion) defined
mathematics as follows: "there is a square, but that still has to be
proved".
Judging by my teaching experience in France, the university students'
idea of mathematics (even of those taught mathematics at the École
Normale Supérieure - I feel sorry most of all for these obviously
intelligent but deformed kids) is as poor as that of this pupil.
For example, these students have never seen a paraboloid and a
question on the form of the surface given by the equation xy = z^2
puts the mathematicians studying at ENS into a stupor. Drawing a curve
given by parametric equations (like x = t^3 - 3t, y = t^4 - 2t^2) on a
plane is a totally impossible problem for students (and, probably,
even for most French professors of mathematics).
[V.I. Arnold: "On teaching mathematics" (1997) mathematics in Palais
de Découverte in Paris on 7 March 1997, Translated by A.V. Goryunov]
http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html
Regards, WM
Mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science,
a part of natural science. Mathematics is the part of physics where
experiments are cheap.
The Jacobi identity (which forces the heights of a triangle to cross
at one point) is an experimental fact in the same way as that the
Earth is round (that is, homeomorphic to a ball). But it can be
discovered with less expense.
In the middle of the twentieth century it was attempted to divide
physics and mathematics. The consequences turned out to be
catastrophic. Whole generations of mathematicians grew up without
knowing half of their science and, of course, in total ignorance of
any other sciences. They first began teaching their ugly scholastic
pseudo-mathematics to their students, then to schoolchildren
(forgetting Hardy's warning that ugly mathematics has no permanent
place under the Sun).
Since scholastic mathematics that is cut off from physics is fit
neither for teaching nor for application in any other science, the
result was the universal hate towards mathematicians - both on the
part of the poor schoolchildren (some of whom in the meantime became
ministers) and of the users.
The ugly building, built by undereducated mathematicians who were
exhausted by their inferiority complex and who were unable to make
themselves familiar with physics [...] predominated in the teaching of
mathematics for decades. Having originated in France, this
pervertedness quickly spread to teaching of foundations of
mathematics, first to university students, then to school pupils of
all lines (first in France, then in other countries, including
Russia).
To the question "what is 2 + 3" a French primary school pupil replied:
"3 + 2, since addition is commutative". He did not know what the sum
was equal to and could not even understand what he was asked about!
Another French pupil (quite rational, in my opinion) defined
mathematics as follows: "there is a square, but that still has to be
proved".
Judging by my teaching experience in France, the university students'
idea of mathematics (even of those taught mathematics at the École
Normale Supérieure - I feel sorry most of all for these obviously
intelligent but deformed kids) is as poor as that of this pupil.
For example, these students have never seen a paraboloid and a
question on the form of the surface given by the equation xy = z^2
puts the mathematicians studying at ENS into a stupor. Drawing a curve
given by parametric equations (like x = t^3 - 3t, y = t^4 - 2t^2) on a
plane is a totally impossible problem for students (and, probably,
even for most French professors of mathematics).
[V.I. Arnold: "On teaching mathematics" (1997) mathematics in Palais
de Découverte in Paris on 7 March 1997, Translated by A.V. Goryunov]
http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html
Regards, WM
Uergil
Jun 20, 2012, 1:12:13 PM6/20/12
to
In article
<b124222f-38c3-4213...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Wrong in the very first sentence,
Mathematics was around long before physics was even a gleam in Newton's
eye.
The ancient Egyptians, for example, used geometry in their surveying to
establish property lines after Nile floods long before any physics.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
<b124222f-38c3-4213...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Wrong in the very first sentence,
Mathematics was around long before physics was even a gleam in Newton's
eye.
The ancient Egyptians, for example, used geometry in their surveying to
establish property lines after Nile floods long before any physics.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
WM
Jun 20, 2012, 1:38:51 PM6/20/12
to
On 20 Jun., 19:12, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
> In article
> <b124222f-38c3-4213-acbf-c75fc2a37...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Murray Gell-Mann, being a physicist, rather than a pure
mathematician,
is not able to speak authoritatively about pure mathematics, which is
not now, and never has been "united" with physics.
Today I thought to do you a favour an present you an excellent
mathematician with the same opinion. I seems I cannot please you.
> Mathematics was around long before physics was even a gleam in Newton's
> eye.
Physics is a lot older than Newton. Without chalculi no mathematics
and no calculus could have rised.
lenths to establish rectangular triangles. That's physics with no
doubt.
On the other hand the first catalogue of mathematics genealogy
(authored by Eudemos, a pupil of Aristotle) lists Pythagoras as the
first mathematician (not even Thales). This proves that physics is a
lot older than mathematics (500 BC).
Mathematics is physics, but not all physics is mathematics.
Regards, WM
> In article
> <b124222f-38c3-4213-acbf-c75fc2a37...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > Matheology § 044
>
> > Mathematics is a part of physics.
>
> Wrong in the very first sentence,
>
Yesterday you damned an excellent physicist as a non-mathematician:
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > Matheology § 044
>
> > Mathematics is a part of physics.
>
> Wrong in the very first sentence,
>
Murray Gell-Mann, being a physicist, rather than a pure
mathematician,
is not able to speak authoritatively about pure mathematics, which is
not now, and never has been "united" with physics.
Today I thought to do you a favour an present you an excellent
mathematician with the same opinion. I seems I cannot please you.
> Mathematics was around long before physics was even a gleam in Newton's
> eye.
and no calculus could have rised.
>
> The ancient Egyptians, for example, used geometry in their surveying to
> establish property lines after Nile floods long before any physics.
They used physics. The so-vcalled harpedonapts used ropes of different
> The ancient Egyptians, for example, used geometry in their surveying to
> establish property lines after Nile floods long before any physics.
lenths to establish rectangular triangles. That's physics with no
doubt.
On the other hand the first catalogue of mathematics genealogy
(authored by Eudemos, a pupil of Aristotle) lists Pythagoras as the
first mathematician (not even Thales). This proves that physics is a
lot older than mathematics (500 BC).
Mathematics is physics, but not all physics is mathematics.
Regards, WM
Uergil
Jun 20, 2012, 4:28:29 PM6/20/12
to
In article
<40b6840f-1462-4e7b...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
And note that that the 3-4-5 sided triangle that their knotted rope
loops formed was a right triangle is a matter of mathematics, not
physics.
that there was no arithmetic used outside Greece prior to Pythagoras?
arithmetic which is the basis of todays secure electronic communication?
And what is the physics of set theory, or topoi?
<40b6840f-1462-4e7b...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 20 Jun., 19:12, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b124222f-38c3-4213-acbf-c75fc2a37...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > Matheology § 044
> >
> > > Mathematics is a part of physics.
> >
> > Wrong in the very first sentence,
> >
> Yesterday you damned an excellent physicist as a non-mathematician:
>
> Murray Gell-Mann, being a physicist, rather than a pure
> mathematician,
> is not able to speak authoritatively about pure mathematics, which is
> not now, and never has been "united" with physics.
>
> Today I thought to do you a favour an present you an excellent
> mathematician with the same opinion. I seems I cannot please you.
>
> > Mathematics was around long before physics was even a gleam in Newton's
> > eye.
>
> Physics is a lot older than Newton. Without chalculi no mathematics
> and no calculus could have rised.
> >
> > The ancient Egyptians, for example, used geometry in their surveying to
> > establish property lines after Nile floods long before any physics.
>
> They used physics. The so-vcalled harpedonapts used ropes of different
> lenths to establish rectangular triangles. That's physics with no
> doubt.
No more than their using papyrus on which to record things is physics.
> On 20 Jun., 19:12, Uergil <Uer...@uer.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b124222f-38c3-4213-acbf-c75fc2a37...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > Matheology § 044
> >
> > > Mathematics is a part of physics.
> >
> > Wrong in the very first sentence,
> >
> Yesterday you damned an excellent physicist as a non-mathematician:
>
> Murray Gell-Mann, being a physicist, rather than a pure
> mathematician,
> is not able to speak authoritatively about pure mathematics, which is
> not now, and never has been "united" with physics.
>
> Today I thought to do you a favour an present you an excellent
> mathematician with the same opinion. I seems I cannot please you.
>
> > Mathematics was around long before physics was even a gleam in Newton's
> > eye.
>
> Physics is a lot older than Newton. Without chalculi no mathematics
> and no calculus could have rised.
> >
> > The ancient Egyptians, for example, used geometry in their surveying to
> > establish property lines after Nile floods long before any physics.
>
> They used physics. The so-vcalled harpedonapts used ropes of different
> lenths to establish rectangular triangles. That's physics with no
> doubt.
And note that that the 3-4-5 sided triangle that their knotted rope
loops formed was a right triangle is a matter of mathematics, not
physics.
>
> On the other hand the first catalogue of mathematics genealogy
> (authored by Eudemos, a pupil of Aristotle) lists Pythagoras as the
> first mathematician (not even Thales). This proves that physics is a
> lot older than mathematics (500 BC).
Where is your evidence that no Greek physicist preceded Pythagoras or
> On the other hand the first catalogue of mathematics genealogy
> (authored by Eudemos, a pupil of Aristotle) lists Pythagoras as the
> first mathematician (not even Thales). This proves that physics is a
> lot older than mathematics (500 BC).
that there was no arithmetic used outside Greece prior to Pythagoras?
>
> Mathematics is physics, but not all physics is mathematics.
What is the physics involved in prime number theory or the modular
> Mathematics is physics, but not all physics is mathematics.
arithmetic which is the basis of todays secure electronic communication?
And what is the physics of set theory, or topoi?
WM
Jun 20, 2012, 4:59:42 PM6/20/12
to
> And what is the physics of set theory,
There is no physics of transfinite set theory because transfinite set
theory is not mathematics.
Regards, WM
Uergil
Jun 20, 2012, 5:31:48 PM6/20/12
to
In article
<22efc22e-5eb5-4d3e...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
It may not be mathematics in the minds of idiot physicists like WM but
it sure as hell is for the vast majority of mathematicians.
<22efc22e-5eb5-4d3e...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
it sure as hell is for the vast majority of mathematicians.
0 new messages