What Did Russell Mean?

[Mack A. Damia]

(Examples would help)

"Ordinary language is totally unsuited for expressing what physics
really asserts, since the words of everyday life are not sufficiently
abstract. Only mathematics and mathematical logic can say as little as
the physicist means to say."

— Bertrand Russell, The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell (1961),
Part. XVI, The Philosopher and Expositor of Science, Essay 69:
Limitations of Scientific Method, p.626

[Jerry Friedman]

I think he means, with a bit of exaggeration, that the equations of
physics are just ways of predicting the results of measurements.
They don't have hints or connotations. They don't make claims such
as that everything is relative or nothing is certain.

--
Jerry Friedman

[henh...@gmail.com]

i think what he meant was similar to this:



The Dissolution of Philosophical Problems

The correct approach to philosophical problems, according to Wittgenstein, is not to attempt to solve them but rather to reach a point where the problems dissolve of their own accord. The problems of philosophy, in this view, are in fact pseudoproblems. Where we think we perceive a problem, we are in fact caught in philosophical confusion.

For example, in On Certainty, Wittgenstein attempts to unravel the problem of external-world skepticism, showing that the very question of how we can know that there is a world external to our senses only arises if we misunderstand the nature of propositions, such as “here is a hand”—in actual life, such propositions are not offered as knowledge that might be proven true or false.

Wittgenstein’s approach is not to say that external-world skepticism is false but rather to show that the very question of whether external-world skepticism is true or false arises out of a misunderstanding of the language we use.

If we absorb Wittgenstein’s teachings, we do not come to settled solutions to the philosophical problems that haunt us, but rather we reach a state where these problems cease to haunt us. What Wittgenstein seeks is not solutions so much as an end to theorizing.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Wednesday, 12 April 2023 at 06:06:56 UTC+10, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> (Examples would help)
>
> "Ordinary language is totally unsuited for expressing what physics
> really asserts,

Nonsense, so far as genuine physics, as opposed to the hoax Einsteinian pseudophysics crammed down by the establishment here represented by Russell, is concerned.

> since the words of everyday life are not sufficiently
> abstract.

They are sufficient to describe reality, as oppised to the rabid imaginings of tge Einsteinian clergy.

>Only mathematics and mathematical logic can say as little as
> the physicist means to say."

The pseudophysicist abuses mathematics for its career.

[Peter Moylan]

I have a different take on it. I think what he's saying is there are
many things that are easy to express in mathematical notation, and in
that form they are quite clear to a physicist, but which are hard to
express in plain English, because English is not expressive enough.

You can try to paraphrase, but the result of that is likely to be
misleading because the paraphrase will probably be open to several
possible interpretations, some or all of which were not present in the
original formulation.

Here's an example. Suppose I write

∇xE = - ∂B/∂t

You know what that means, and so do I, but half the readers of this
posting will make no sense of it at all. I could put it in words as

curl E equals minus partial dB dt

but that is still gobbledegook to most people.

How could you say it in English? I could try "a time-varying magnetic
field creates an electric field", but that is at the same time saying
too much and too little. Even the verb "creates" is questionable in that
statement, but I don't think English has a more appropriate verb.
"Coexists with", perhaps? But that would be confusing.

[In the above, you can of course replace "English" with any other
natural language.]

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Arindam Banerjee]

Easily done, if you are I.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 7:43:11 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 12/04/23 06:25, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 2:06:56 PM UTC-6, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> >> (Examples would help)
> >>
> >> "Ordinary language is totally unsuited for expressing what physics
> >> really asserts, since the words of everyday life are not
> >> sufficiently abstract. Only mathematics and mathematical logic can
> >> say as little as the physicist means to say."
> >>
> >> — Bertrand Russell, The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell (1961),
> >> Part. XVI, The Philosopher and Expositor of Science, Essay 69:
> >> Limitations of Scientific Method, p.626
> >
> > I think he means, with a bit of exaggeration, that the equations of
> > physics are just ways of predicting the results of measurements. They
> > don't have hints or connotations. They don't make claims such as
> > that everything is relative or nothing is certain.

> I have a different take on it. I think what he's saying is there are
> many things that are easy to express in mathematical notation, and in
> that form they are quite clear to a physicist, but which are hard to
> express in plain English, because English is not expressive enough.

(Not expressive enough about such matters.) But since that seems
obvious, I focused on "say as *little* as the physicist means to say."

> You can try to paraphrase, but the result of that is likely to be
> misleading because the paraphrase will probably be open to several
> possible interpretations, some or all of which were not present in the
> original formulation.
>
> Here's an example. Suppose I write
>
> ∇xE = - ∂B/∂t
>
> You know what that means, and so do I, but half the readers of this
> posting will make no sense of it at all. I could put it in words as
>
> curl E equals minus partial dB dt

Is that how you pronounce partial derivatives? I say "partial B
partial t".

> but that is still gobbledegook to most people.

The next step is "At any point, the curl of the electric field is the negative
of the rate of change of the magnetic field." But to get any further,
you'll have to explain "curl".

> How could you say it in English? I could try "a time-varying magnetic
> field creates an electric field", but that is at the same time saying
> too much and too little.

I do say that to my students, only with "changing" instead of "time-varying".

> Even the verb "creates" is questionable in that
> statement, but I don't think English has a more appropriate verb.
> "Coexists with", perhaps? But that would be confusing.

...

"Will always be found with"? But the picture of "creates" is of someone
shaking a magnet or putting a changing current into a coil.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Mack A. Damia]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:25:52 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
<jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

He is talking about "ordinary language". Same as "conversational
English"?

Consider formulas involving, say, the electrical ohm. There is
nothing abstract enough in the English language to explain what an ohm
is other than to say that it involves measurements of amperes and
volts - but what are they? And how could you explain them abstractly
in ordinary language and conversation?

[Peter Moylan]

On 12/04/23 12:52, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 7:43:11 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> Here's an example. Suppose I write
>>
>> ∇xE = - ∂B/∂t
>>
>> You know what that means, and so do I, but half the readers of
>> this posting will make no sense of it at all. I could put it in
>> words as
>>
>> curl E equals minus partial dB dt
>
> Is that how you pronounce partial derivatives? I say "partial B
> partial t".

That's how I say it, and no doubt I picked that up from other people.
But I've heard so few samples that I wouldn't dare make a claim on
behalf of all Australians, or even all Novocasrians.

>
>> but that is still gobbledegook to most people.
>
> The next step is "At any point, the curl of the electric field is the
> negative of the rate of change of the magnetic field." But to get
> any further, you'll have to explain "curl".

You can take the next step by saying that the curl is _a_
three-dimensional derivative of a three-dimensional vector field. Of
course you have to qualify that by saying that once you get past
functions of one variable there are several definitions of "derivative",
and they are in no way equivalent to one another.

It's easier for the students, though, if you first introduce the cross
product of two vectors, and then describe the curl as the cross product
of an operator and a vector.

>> How could you say it in English? I could try "a time-varying
>> magnetic field creates an electric field", but that is at the same
>> time saying too much and too little.
>
> I do say that to my students, only with "changing" instead of
> "time-varying".

I presume, though, that by that stage your students have picked up
enough background not to be confused by such a statement.

[J. J. Lodder]

A classic, and earlier example is due to Heinrich Hertz:
"Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations"

You can talk about it a lot,
or invent models to explain some aspects,
but in the end the only thing that really matters
are the equations and their solutions.

What is physically relevant are precisely those things
that do not depend on words,

Jan

[Arindam Banerjee]

Rubbish. All physics formulas are condensations of words, otherwise they are meaningless garbage like the entire relativity-quantum bunkums.
>
> Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

That's just a (partial) transliteration.

> but that is still gobbledegook to most people.
>
> How could you say it in English? I could try "a time-varying magnetic
> field creates an electric field", but that is at the same time saying
> too much and too little. Even the verb "creates" is questionable in that
> statement, but I don't think English has a more appropriate verb.
> "Coexists with", perhaps? But that would be confusing.

I see an equals sign. Wouldn't a good translation be "is"?

[Jerry Friedman]

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 9:21:43 PM UTC-6, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:25:52 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 2:06:56?PM UTC-6, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> >> (Examples would help)
> >>
> >> "Ordinary language is totally unsuited for expressing what physics
> >> really asserts, since the words of everyday life are not sufficiently
> >> abstract. Only mathematics and mathematical logic can say as little as
> >> the physicist means to say."
> >>
> >> — Bertrand Russell, The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell (1961),
> >> Part. XVI, The Philosopher and Expositor of Science, Essay 69:
> >> Limitations of Scientific Method, p.626
> >
> >I think he means, with a bit of exaggeration, that the equations of
> >physics are just ways of predicting the results of measurements.
> >They don't have hints or connotations. They don't make claims such
> >as that everything is relative or nothing is certain.

> He is talking about "ordinary language". Same as "conversational
> English"?

Hard to say, in my opinion. He says "the words of everyday life", which
suggests that "ordinary language" here is conversational language, but
then he contrasts it with "mathematics and mathematical logic", which
suggests that it includes academic language as well.

Possibly for Russell, academic language was part of the language of
everyday life.

> Consider formulas involving, say, the electrical ohm. There is
> nothing abstract enough in the English language to explain what an ohm
> is other than to say that it involves measurements of amperes and
> volts - but what are they? And how could you explain them abstractly
> in ordinary language and conversation?

I agree with you (if I understand your rhetorical questions correctly) and
Jan and Peter M. on this point. As I said to Peter, I was focusing on
why Russell said "say as little".

--
Jerry Friedman

[J. J. Lodder]

Yes, condensed until nothing remains.
Like the same Bertrand Russell supposedly said:
Mathematics is like the smile of the Chesshire Cat.
It is what remains after the chat has gone.
Mathematics the grin without the cat.

Maxwell's Equations are the same for everyone,
no matter how many words in whaever language you waste on them,

Jan

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:41:42 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
<jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

The only thing preventing mathematics from being mysticism is that
mathematics is founded on logic. If you see only the symbols and
formulas and consider that the majority of (otherwise) intelligent
people do not understand it, then you might conclude that it's magic.

[Ken Blake]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:43:02 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 12/04/23 06:25, Jerry Friedman wrote:

>> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 2:06:56?PM UTC-6, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>>> (Examples would help)
>>>
>>> "Ordinary language is totally unsuited for expressing what physics
>>> really asserts, since the words of everyday life are not
>>> sufficiently abstract. Only mathematics and mathematical logic can
>>> say as little as the physicist means to say."
>>>
>>> — Bertrand Russell, The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell (1961),
>>> Part. XVI, The Philosopher and Expositor of Science, Essay 69:
>>> Limitations of Scientific Method, p.626
>>
>> I think he means, with a bit of exaggeration, that the equations of
>> physics are just ways of predicting the results of measurements. They
>> don't have hints or connotations. They don't make claims such as
>> that everything is relative or nothing is certain.
>
>I have a different take on it. I think what he's saying is there are
>many things that are easy to express in mathematical notation, and in
>that form they are quite clear to a physicist, but which are hard to
>express in plain English, because English is not expressive enough.
>
>You can try to paraphrase, but the result of that is likely to be
>misleading because the paraphrase will probably be open to several
>possible interpretations, some or all of which were not present in the
>original formulation.
>
>Here's an example. Suppose I write
>

> ?xE = - ?B/?t

>
>You know what that means, and so do I, but half the readers of this
>posting will make no sense of it at all.

With the question marks, I could make no sense of it, but I suspected
that even if I could see the actual characters, it wouldn't help.

> I could put it in words as
>
> curl E equals minus partial dB dt

That's better. Now I can recognize it as a differential equation.

But knowing next to nothing about differential equations, I still
could make no sense of it.

>but that is still gobbledegook to most people.

Yes.

>How could you say it in English? I could try "a time-varying magnetic
>field creates an electric field", but that is at the same time saying
>too much and too little. Even the verb "creates" is questionable in that
>statement, but I don't think English has a more appropriate verb.
>"Coexists with", perhaps? But that would be confusing.
>
>[In the above, you can of course replace "English" with any other
>natural language.]

So I did a Google search on curl E equals minus partial dB dt and
found that it's the differential form of the Faraday-Henry equation.

Now that I know that, it still makes no sense to me.

And reading
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/388827/is-the-differential-form-of-faraday-henry-equation-curle-db-dt-always-va

didn't help at all.

[J. J. Lodder]

Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On axioms, really. (at least in principle)

> If you see only the symbols and formulas and consider that the majority of
> (otherwise) intelligent people do not understand it, then you might
> conclude that it's magic.

It is playing a kind of game.
To understand what is happening you must know and understand
the rules of the game.

Intelligent people, and also less intelligent ones,
do understand that there are things like games.
Even chimps do understand simple games.

Mathematics is just the most difficult game ever invented.
(with applications, in some cases, but that is physics)

Jan

[Snidely]

Ken Blake is guilty of <2snd3il9qdgueca6t...@4ax.com> as
of 4/12/2023 9:52:06 AM

Changing the magnetic field for a while changes the electric field.

/dps "spin your magnet"

--
Yes, I have had a cucumber soda. Why do you ask?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Thursday, 13 April 2023 at 02:06:24 UTC+10, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 12 April 2023 at 19:54:13 UTC+10, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > (Examples would help)
> > > >
> > > > "Ordinary language is totally unsuited for expressing what physics
> > > > really asserts, since the words of everyday life are not sufficiently
> > > > abstract. Only mathematics and mathematical logic can say as little as
> > > > the physicist means to say."
> > > >
> > > > ˜ Bertrand Russell, The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell (1961),
> > > > Part. XVI, The Philosopher and Expositor of Science, Essay 69:
> > > > Limitations of Scientific Method, p.626
> > > A classic, and earlier example is due to Heinrich Hertz:
> > > "Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations"
> > >
> > > You can talk about it a lot,
> > > or invent models to explain some aspects,
> > > but in the end the only thing that really matters
> > > are the equations and their solutions.
> > >
> > > What is physically relevant are precisely those things
> > > that do not depend on words,
> >
> > Rubbish. All physics formulas are condensations of words, otherwise they
> > are meaningless garbage like the entire relativity-quantum bunkums.
> Yes, condensed until nothing remains.

No, condensed for mathematical manipulation, for development and optimization of systems when you are an engineer; and prediction for further formulas for other subjects including physics, leading to understanding of events.
This is what happens when you know what the mathematics formula actually means - a concise symbolic representation of relevant ideas expressed in words, for common understanding among those taking the trouble to learn the significances. Yes, years of training and experience are required to attain this state, but with patience the competent engineering mathematician - such as I - can explain even the most difficult but practical mathematical formulas he himself understands, to anyone intelligent and interested enough to be tenacious.

> Like the same Bertrand Russell supposedly said:
> Mathematics is like the smile of the Chesshire Cat.

No. Mathematics is the amusement of the Goddess Saraswati; it is a bag of tricks for seeking Truth.

> It is what remains after the chat has gone.
> Mathematics the grin without the cat.

It is the source of cats and other objects.

> Maxwell's Equations are the same for everyone,

If you are the aether denying particle boosting e=mcc=hv type (the Einstein-Feynman relativistic quantum mechanics wallah) it is not relevant theoretically.

> no matter how many words in whaever language you waste on them,

How you understand them, is the issue. When you understand them correctly, you design antennas, microwave system, you make new design rail guns that have no reaction, thus upholding their practical significance.
So, aether is back as the medium for electromagnetic wave motion, so radiation is aetheric vibration, not momentum from particles.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

>
> Jan

[Peter Moylan]

On 12/04/23 23:31, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 9:43:11 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 12/04/23 06:25, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 2:06:56 PM UTC-6, Mack A. Damia
>>> wrote:
>>>> (Examples would help)
>>>>
>>>> "Ordinary language is totally unsuited for expressing what
>>>> physics really asserts, since the words of everyday life are
>>>> not sufficiently abstract. Only mathematics and mathematical
>>>> logic can say as little as the physicist means to say."
>>>>
>>>> — Bertrand Russell, The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell
>>>> (1961), Part. XVI, The Philosopher and Expositor of Science,
>>>> Essay 69: Limitations of Scientific Method, p.626
>>>
>>> I think he means, with a bit of exaggeration, that the equations
>>> of physics are just ways of predicting the results of
>>> measurements. They don't have hints or connotations. They don't
>>> make claims such as that everything is relative or nothing is
>>> certain.

>> I have a different take on it.

Just to make it clear, I don't disagree with what Jerry said. He focused
on Russell's second sentence, I focused on the first.

>> I think what he's saying is there are many things that are easy to
>> express in mathematical notation, and in that form they are quite
>> clear to a physicist, but which are hard to express in plain
>> English, because English is not expressive enough.
>>
>> You can try to paraphrase, but the result of that is likely to be
>> misleading because the paraphrase will probably be open to several
>> possible interpretations, some or all of which were not present
>> in the original formulation.
>>
>> Here's an example. Suppose I write
>>
>> ∇xE = - ∂B/∂t
>>
>> You know what that means, and so do I, but half the readers of this
>> posting will make no sense of it at all. I could put it in words
>> as
>>
>> curl E equals minus partial dB dt
>
> That's just a (partial) transliteration.

The point I was trying to make is that a transliteration is about as far
as you can go without changing the meaning. If you turn a statement like
this into plain English, you will probably lose important detail, and
it's very likely you will end up with a misleading or even wrong statement.

>> but that is still gobbledegook to most people.
>>
>> How could you say it in English? I could try "a time-varying
>> magnetic field creates an electric field", but that is at the same
>> time saying too much and too little. Even the verb "creates" is
>> questionable in that statement, but I don't think English has a
>> more appropriate verb. "Coexists with", perhaps? But that would be
>> confusing.
>
> I see an equals sign. Wouldn't a good translation be "is"?

That depends on what 'is' is. In Clinton's case, he was quibbling about
verb tense. Here it's even trickier. In contexts like this, 'is' means
identity. The mathematical '=' sign has a weaker meaning. It means that
if you evaluate the thing on the left and also evaluate the thing on the
right, you will get the same answer. Saying that two things have the
same value is not the same as saying they are the same.

Computer programmers will understand this bit: if you say that X and Y
have the same value, that does NOT imply that they have the same address.

>> [In the above, you can of course replace "English" with any other
>> natural language.]

[Madhu]

* "Peter T. Daniels" <7a22f9f0-86ce-48cd-8faa-ed680f9a67e5n @googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:31:41 -0700 (PDT):

> I see an equals sign. Wouldn't a good translation be "is"?

More than one ESL mathematics instructors in India (70s and 80s) would
refer to the equals sign as "is equals". 1 = 2/2 ( "one 'is equals' two
by two" )

[Peter T. Daniels]

BTW, what do you call the squiggly-d symbol? (It's not a delta!)

> The point I was trying to make is that a transliteration is about as far
> as you can go without changing the meaning. If you turn a statement like
> this into plain English, you will probably lose important detail, and
> it's very likely you will end up with a misleading or even wrong statement.
>
> >> but that is still gobbledegook to most people.
> >> How could you say it in English? I could try "a time-varying
> >> magnetic field creates an electric field", but that is at the same
> >> time saying too much and too little. Even the verb "creates" is
> >> questionable in that statement, but I don't think English has a
> >> more appropriate verb. "Coexists with", perhaps? But that would be
> >> confusing.
> > I see an equals sign. Wouldn't a good translation be "is"?
>
> That depends on what 'is' is. In Clinton's case, he was quibbling about
> verb tense. Here it's even trickier. In contexts like this, 'is' means
> identity. The mathematical '=' sign has a weaker meaning. It means that
> if you evaluate the thing on the left and also evaluate the thing on the
> right, you will get the same answer. Saying that two things have the
> same value is not the same as saying they are the same.

Clear clarification. Merci. Would _ser_ vs. _estar_ help?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:30:42 PM UTC-4, Madhu wrote:
> * "Peter T. Daniels" <7a22f9f0-86ce-48cd-8faa-ed680f9a67e5n @googlegroups.com> :
> Wrote on Wed, 12 Apr 2023 06:31:41 -0700 (PDT):

> > I see an equals sign. Wouldn't a good translation be "is"?
> More than one ESL mathematics instructors in India (70s and 80s) would
> refer to the equals sign as "is equals". 1 = 2/2 ( "one 'is equals' two
> by two" )

Close, but no cigar ...

Also, "by" seems odd.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:18:40 AM UTC-6, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 8:12:41 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 12/04/23 23:31, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 9:43:11 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

...

> > >> Here's an example. Suppose I write
> > >> ∇xE = - ∂B/∂t

...

> BTW, what do you call the squiggly-d symbol? (It's not a delta!)

...

I don't know about Peter, but I call it the partial-derivative sign.
When I introduce it, I ask my students to make sure their
partial-derivative signs don't look like 2's, d's, or alphas.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I think I called it partial-d when I needed a name for it, or curly d
if I wanted to emphasize its appearance.


--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Unicode just calls it "partial differential." That's not helpful!

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:31:01?AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:18:40?AM UTC-6, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 8:12:41?PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > > On 12/04/23 23:31, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 9:43:11?PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> > > > >> Here's an example. Suppose I write

> > > > >> ?xE = - ∂B/∂t

> > ...
> > > BTW, what do you call the squiggly-d symbol? (It's not a delta!)
> > ...
> >
> > I don't know about Peter, but I call it the partial-derivative sign.
> > When I introduce it, I ask my students to make sure their
> > partial-derivative signs don't look like 2's, d's, or alphas.
>
> Unicode just calls it "partial differential." That's not helpful!

It is what it is. And it is usually pronounced just 'd'.
Those using it will know that it is partial,

Jan

[Jerry Friedman]

Usually in some areas. I've never heard that.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Moylan]

On 14/04/23 01:18, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-04-13 14:30:57 +0000, Jerry Friedman said:
>
>> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:18:40 AM UTC-6, Peter T. Daniels
>> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 8:12:41 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan
>>> wrote:> > On 12/04/23 23:31, Peter T. Daniels wrote:> > > On
>>> Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 9:43:11 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan
>>> wrote:...
>>
>>>>>> Here's an example. Suppose I write> > >> ∇xE = - ∂B/∂t...
>>
>>> BTW, what do you call the squiggly-d symbol? (It's not a delta!)
>> ...
>>
>> I don't know about Peter, but I call it the partial-derivative
>> sign. When I introduce it, I ask my students to make sure their
>> partial-derivative signs don't look like 2's, d's, or alphas.
>
> I think I called it partial-d when I needed a name for it, or curly
> d if I wanted to emphasize its appearance.

I sometimes call it del, but that's sloppy, because del (or sometimes
nabla) is the name of the upside-down triangle. I justify it in my mind
by knowing that nabla denotes a partial derivative in 3-space, while the
curly d is for a partial derivative with respect to a 1-space variable.
But calling it del is definitely non-standard, so I try not to do it out
loud.

Nobody seems to have come up with a name for the ∂ character. Almost
everyone uses some form of "partial" when describing it.

[Arindam Banerjee]

I would put it as a time varying magnetic field creates a space-varying electric field.
The equality sign is confusing.
Magnetic and electric fields are different physically.

> >
> > That's just a (partial) transliteration.
> The point I was trying to make is that a transliteration is about as far
> as you can go without changing the meaning. If you turn a statement like
> this into plain English, you will probably lose important detail, and
> it's very likely you will end up with a misleading or even wrong statement.
> >> but that is still gobbledegook to most people.

I don't see any gobbledegook in my literary expression.

> >>
> >> How could you say it in English? I could try "a time-varying
> >> magnetic field creates an electric field", but that is at the same
> >> time saying too much and too little. Even the verb "creates" is
> >> questionable in that statement, but I don't think English has a
> >> more appropriate verb. "Coexists with", perhaps? But that would be
> >> confusing.
> >
> > I see an equals sign. Wouldn't a good translation be "is"?
> That depends on what 'is' is. In Clinton's case, he was quibbling about
> verb tense. Here it's even trickier. In contexts like this, 'is' means
> identity. The mathematical '=' sign has a weaker meaning. It means that
> if you evaluate the thing on the left and also evaluate the thing on the
> right, you will get the same answer. Saying that two things have the
> same value is not the same as saying they are the same.

Profound.

[Phil Carmody]

Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 7:43:11 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> ∇xE = - ∂B/∂t
>>
>> You know what that means, and so do I, but half the readers of this
>> posting will make no sense of it at all. I could put it in words as
>>
>> curl E equals minus partial dB dt
>
> Is that how you pronounce partial derivatives? I say "partial B
> partial t".

"partial d B by d t" as if partialness distributed over the normal
d by d thing. In either case, the "by" is essential.

Sometimes symbols are best.

Phil - Maths, Oxon., 80s
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/04/23 05:07, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 7:43:11 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan
>> wrote:
>>> ∇xE = - ∂B/∂t
>>>
>>> You know what that means, and so do I, but half the readers of
>>> this posting will make no sense of it at all. I could put it in
>>> words as
>>>
>>> curl E equals minus partial dB dt
>>
>> Is that how you pronounce partial derivatives? I say "partial B
>> partial t".
>
> "partial d B by d t" as if partialness distributed over the normal d
> by d thing. In either case, the "by" is essential.

Essential? This is the first time I've encountered someone who uses "by"
in that construct.

Are you using it in the sense of "divided by"? It's true that I
sometimes use the bare dB and dt as if they were variables - that's
especially helpful when simplifying an integral - but you have to be
careful when doing that.

> Sometimes symbols are best.

Definitely.

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 16/04/23 05:07, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> writes:

> >> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 7:43:11?PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan
> >> wrote:
> >>> ?xE = - ∂B/∂t

> >>>
> >>> You know what that means, and so do I, but half the readers of
> >>> this posting will make no sense of it at all. I could put it in
> >>> words as
> >>>
> >>> curl E equals minus partial dB dt
> >>
> >> Is that how you pronounce partial derivatives? I say "partial B
> >> partial t".
> >
> > "partial d B by d t" as if partialness distributed over the normal d
> > by d thing. In either case, the "by" is essential.
>
> Essential? This is the first time I've encountered someone who uses "by"
> in that construct.

When I was young I was very much instructed that dy/dx
must NOT, NEVER, EVER be interpreted as dy divided by dx.
Only the combined symbol dy/dx considered as a whole
was allowed to have meaning.

> Are you using it in the sense of "divided by"? It's true that I
> sometimes use the bare dB and dt as if they were variables - that's
> especially helpful when simplifying an integral - but you have to be
> careful when doing that.

Yes, but it has been legalised by now.

> > Sometimes symbols are best.
>
> Definitely.

"... nothing but....."

Jan

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 3:58:12 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 16/04/23 05:07, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > > Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 7:43:11?PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> ?xE = - ∂B/∂t
> > >>>
> > >>> You know what that means, and so do I, but half the readers of
> > >>> this posting will make no sense of it at all. I could put it in
> > >>> words as
> > >>>
> > >>> curl E equals minus partial dB dt
> > >>
> > >> Is that how you pronounce partial derivatives? I say "partial B
> > >> partial t".
> > >
> > > "partial d B by d t" as if partialness distributed over the normal d
> > > by d thing. In either case, the "by" is essential.
> >
> > Essential? This is the first time I've encountered someone who uses "by"
> > in that construct.

> When I was young I was very much instructed that dy/dx
> must NOT, NEVER, EVER be interpreted as dy divided by dx.
> Only the combined symbol dy/dx considered as a whole
> was allowed to have meaning.

...

So was I, and likewise that dx and dy had NO MEANING except in that
kind of symbol or after an integral sign. I was mildly shocked when I
saw them on their own, and I think many if not all of my students are
when they see me do that.

--
Jerry Friedman

[occam]

<Hmm.> Yet, to an alien intelligence, our mathematical symbols ( e.g
∇xE = - ∂B/∂t ) will be as meaningless as our language symbols (words).
The physics will be the same.

Whether there will be a one-to-one mapping between the two equations
(human, alien) is not so clear to me.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

occam wrote:

>> What is physically relevant are precisely those things
>> that do not depend on words,
>>
>
> <Hmm.> Yet, to an alien intelligence, our mathematical symbols ( e.g
> ∇xE = - ∂B/∂t ) will be as meaningless as our language symbols (words).
> The physics will be the same.

Given enough material the aliens will be able to work out what our
symbols mean just like language scientists have cracked several language
codes from stone writings.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[J. J. Lodder]

Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

(mostly for others)
It was a dark interlude.
Leibniz, and the great mathematicians of the 18th century, like Euler,
had no problem at all with infinitesimals.
The problems with them were created artificially early in the 19th,
by narrow-minded mathematicians, such as Cauchy and Abel.

They banished the actual infinite and infinitesimasl,
and insisted that all of mathematics should be reduced
to merely potential infinities.
(their doctrines are known as 'epsilontism', from their formalism)

Relief came with the invention of non-standard analysis
by Abraham Robinson, mid 20th.
He proved rigorously that there are no problems with dx and dy,
and that you can indeed divide them to obtain dy/dx.
And even without knowing anything about his technicalities
you can freely operate with infinitesimals.

BTW, the triumph of epsilontism was never complete.
Differential geometry was never conquered, except in a handwaving way.
(nobody really bothered)

And of course most physicists never accepted the mathematicians'
narrow-minded bookkeeping of their 'certainties',
(except when having to do exams)

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 12:57:12?PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:31:01?AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 8:18:40?AM UTC-6, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 8:12:41?PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/04/23 23:31, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 9:43:11?PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan:

> > >
> > > > > > >> Here's an example. Suppose I write
> > > > > > >> ?xE = - ∂B/∂t
> > > > ...
> > > > > BTW, what do you call the squiggly-d symbol? (It's not a delta!)
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > I don't know about Peter, but I call it the partial-derivative sign.
> > > > When I introduce it, I ask my students to make sure their
> > > > partial-derivative signs don't look like 2's, d's, or alphas.
> > >
> > > Unicode just calls it "partial differential." That's not helpful!
>
> > It is what it is. And it is usually pronounced just 'd'.
> > Those using it will know that it is partial,
>
> Usually in some areas. I've never heard that.

Lecturing for students must be more rigorous than informal talk,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> On 12/04/2023 11:54, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> (Examples would help)
> >>
> >> "Ordinary language is totally unsuited for expressing what physics
> >> really asserts, since the words of everyday life are not sufficiently
> >> abstract. Only mathematics and mathematical logic can say as little as
> >> the physicist means to say."
> >>
> >> ˜ Bertrand Russell, The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell (1961),
> >> Part. XVI, The Philosopher and Expositor of Science, Essay 69:
> >> Limitations of Scientific Method, p.626
> >
> > A classic, and earlier example is due to Heinrich Hertz:
> > "Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations"
> >
> > You can talk about it a lot,
> > or invent models to explain some aspects,
> > but in the end the only thing that really matters
> > are the equations and their solutions.
> >
> > What is physically relevant are precisely those things
> > that do not depend on words,
> >
>
> <Hmm.> Yet, to an alien intelligence, our mathematical symbols ( e.g

> ?xE = - ∂B/∂t ) will be as meaningless as our language symbols (words).

> The physics will be the same.

Of course. And in particular, all the results must be the same.
Hence a translation must be possible.

> Whether there will be a one-to-one mapping between the two equations
> (human, alien) is not so clear to me.

Perhaps not. We know for example that there are human tribes
who write Maxwell's equations with non-physical, unnatural,
and spurious extra symbols occuring in them.
Translation is possible though,
despite the fact that the usual dimensions don't match,

Jan

Anecdote: I once knew a mathematician who had a reference
to a Russian textbook that exists only in Russian in his thesis.
When asked if that wasn't a problem he said no,
it was perfectly clear what they were doing and what they had derived.
All he needed were the formulae.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 2:19:53 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 12:57:12?PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

[partial-derivative sign]

> > > > Unicode just calls it "partial differential." That's not helpful!
> >
> > > It is what it is. And it is usually pronounced just 'd'.

> > > Those using it will know that it is partial,
> >
> > Usually in some areas. I've never heard that.

> Lecturing for students must be more rigorous than informal talk,

I don't remember ever hearing that symbol pronounced "d" in any
way, with or without "partial", formally or informally. I'll admit that I
haven't heard it often.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think his logic
was a little fuzzy.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Sunday, 16 April 2023 at 19:58:12 UTC+10, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 16/04/23 05:07, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > > Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 7:43:11?PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> ?xE = - ∂B/∂t
> > >>>
> > >>> You know what that means, and so do I, but half the readers of
> > >>> this posting will make no sense of it at all. I could put it in
> > >>> words as
> > >>>
> > >>> curl E equals minus partial dB dt
> > >>
> > >> Is that how you pronounce partial derivatives? I say "partial B
> > >> partial t".
> > >
> > > "partial d B by d t" as if partialness distributed over the normal d
> > > by d thing. In either case, the "by" is essential.
> >
> > Essential? This is the first time I've encountered someone who uses "by"
> > in that construct.
> When I was young I was very much instructed that dy/dx
> must NOT, NEVER, EVER be interpreted as dy divided by dx.

To get the function dy/dx for say y = xx, you do
y + del y = (x+del x)(x + del x), where del y is the increment to y when x is incremented by del x.
Expanding RHS and subtracting y = xx from above we get
del y = 2x del x + del x*del x
As del x tends to zero, reaching the limit when it is very nearly zero
del y = 2x del x + del x*del x, where in comparison the latter term in the RHS is an extremely small number
As del y and del x are not zero, but only very nearly so, being infinitesimals we can have the term
del y/del x as something which is NOT incalculable like 0/0 but which is
del y/del x = 2x, which is a division process of the infinitesimals.
But as they are,and have to be, infitesimals, not just increments, which could be arbitrary, the term del y/del x
is written as
dy/dx meaning the differentiation, or slope, of the function y=f(x).

> Only the combined symbol dy/dx considered as a whole
> was allowed to have meaning.

Yes, and that is the slope of the function f(x) at the point x,y.

Hope this make things clearer. Yes, philosophy comes in hugely here, what after all is 0/0 or infinity/infinity? The whole universe, of course.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee, professional engineering mathematician for 45 years and going...

[Peter Moylan]

Perhaps I'm misremembering, but it sees to me that I was doing that sort
of reasoning in my final year of high school mathematics (1964). It
happened in the context of change of variables when evaluating an integral.

Simple example:
Let y = sin x, then dy = cos x dx . Putting that into
the integral, we get ...

But that was long ago and far away; the world was younger than today.
It's possible that I'm actually remembering my university student days.

[Peter Moylan]

Mathematics is a language. We don't normally think of it as one, because
it doesn't use concepts like nouns and verbs which we normally use when
describing a language. But it is very well suited to the expression of
ideas, provided that those ideas are the ones that mathematicians write
about.

[Peter Moylan]

On 17/04/23 06:31, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> occam <oc...@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>> <Hmm.> Yet, to an alien intelligence, our mathematical symbols ( e.g
>> ?xE = - ∂B/∂t ) will be as meaningless as our language symbols (words).
>> The physics will be the same.
>
> Of course. And in particular, all the results must be the same.
> Hence a translation must be possible.
>
>> Whether there will be a one-to-one mapping between the two equations
>> (human, alien) is not so clear to me.
>
> Perhaps not. We know for example that there are human tribes
> who write Maxwell's equations with non-physical, unnatural,
> and spurious extra symbols occuring in them.
> Translation is possible though,
> despite the fact that the usual dimensions don't match,

Was that supposed to be a subtle hint? You need to remember that the
definition of "usual" depends on one's point of view.

> Anecdote: I once knew a mathematician who had a reference
> to a Russian textbook that exists only in Russian in his thesis.
> When asked if that wasn't a problem he said no,
> it was perfectly clear what they were doing and what they had derived.
> All he needed were the formulae.

In my own research I have occasionally had to rely on German sources.
Mostly I could follow them, despite not knowing German, because the
mathematical parts were cross-cultural.

Where I did run into trouble, on one occasion only, was a change in
writing style over time. Ah, here it is:
E. Stiemke. Uber positive Lösungen homogener linearer Gleichungen.
Mathematische Annalen, 76:340–342, 1915.

I urgently needed to understand his proof, because it was for a result
that many people had quoted but not supplied the proof, or even pointed
to a place where a proof could be found. Unfortunately his reasoning was
almost incomprehensible to me, and seemed to be invalid.

Subsequently I found my own proof using the language of matrices. Matrix
notation existed in Stiemke's time, but probably was not in common
enough use.

[Peter Moylan]

On 17/04/23 11:31, Peter Moylan wrote:

> Mathematics is a language.

Correction: mathematical notation is a language. There is of course more
to mathematics than the notation.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, 17 April 2023 at 12:54:30 UTC+10, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 17/04/23 11:31, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> > Mathematics is a language.
>
> Correction: mathematical notation is a language.

NO, it is a convention. Languages relate to programming using math conventions.

There is of course more
> to mathematics than the notation.

When there is only notation without explanation/substantiation it becomes hocus-pocus, thus a matter for theoretical physicists and other scoundrels.

[occam]

Thank you. I'll track it down and read it soon. I was sure that the idea
had been explored in an SF.

[J. J. Lodder]

Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:22:50?AM UTC-6, occam wrote:
> > On 12/04/2023 11:54, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> (Examples would help)
> > >>
> > >> "Ordinary language is totally unsuited for expressing what physics
> > >> really asserts, since the words of everyday life are not sufficiently
> > >> abstract. Only mathematics and mathematical logic can say as little as
> > >> the physicist means to say."
> > >>
> > >> ˜ Bertrand Russell, The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell (1961),
> > >> Part. XVI, The Philosopher and Expositor of Science, Essay 69:
> > >> Limitations of Scientific Method, p.626
> > >
> > > A classic, and earlier example is due to Heinrich Hertz:
> > > "Maxwell's theory is nothing but Maxwell's equations"
> > >
> > > You can talk about it a lot,
> > > or invent models to explain some aspects,
> > > but in the end the only thing that really matters
> > > are the equations and their solutions.
> > >
> > > What is physically relevant are precisely those things
> > > that do not depend on words,
> > >
> > <Hmm.> Yet, to an alien intelligence, our mathematical symbols ( e.g

> > ?xE = - ∂B/∂t ) will be as meaningless as our language symbols (words).

> > The physics will be the same.
> >
> > Whether there will be a one-to-one mapping between the two equations
> > (human, alien) is not so clear to me.
>
> ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think his logic
> was a little fuzzy.

Don't have it, but there is a Wikipedia on it.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnilingual>
It is on Gutenberg.
Wikip also gives a reference to an edited edition
<http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan/omnilingual.html>
with has the setting a bit modernised to get the focus
on what it is about.

Shock, horror, the women are no longer 'girls',
and they don't chainsmoke.
This is worse than writing the ugly people out of Roald Dahl,

I'll have a look,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Yes, yes, I see that you have learned nothing new in the meantime.
This is the obsolete view that was drummed into high school students.

It is not wrong of course, but it is unsuitable
for modern mathematics and physics,
(like differential geometrty)

Jan

[Arindam Banerjee]

I do not think you had a clue about what I had learnt in high school. Your education has been abominable. Just to swallow, from the powers that be, not work out from the first principles. That education produces great slaves and robots who make the economy grow, that I admit.

The bad I learnt, or rather had to learn, , emcc=hv nonsense that is, I got rid of and replaced with great new insights which are now facts, as proved by my rail gun experiments.

No point posting my resume here, pearls before swine, what. Point is, had I stuck to wrong nonsenses as quantum theory, I could never have made my living making radar antennas from scratch. Nor could I have made the working model pre-protptype of an Internal Force Engine.

> This is the obsolete view that was drummed into high school students.

My children in Australia were taught maths very poorly. And physics too. Fortunately I had wonderful Jesuit teachers in India who made me see clearly and straight, nothing twisted for confusion and mental incompetence.
So it is back to the discarded high school education of the 1960s that we must return, or be such imbeciles as I find in cyberspace.

>
> It is not wrong of course, but it is unsuitable
> for modern mathematics and physics,
> (like differential geometrty)

Rubbish.
It is for academics to jabber nonsense with strange symbols with no need to explain their meaning, and then expect to get superbly rewarded for such fraud. Can't deny, this does work for them. When no one understands what is printed, the greatest glory is achieved. When something is cleanly and clearly explained, it is dismissed. Sad, but this is a world of lies, run by liars.

It is not that engineering mathematics cannot be very highly complex. Useful engineering mathematics usually is very highly complex. My equations in queuning theory, antenna design, call centre simulation, rail gun design, certainly are so. But they can be explained and expressed in words. Which is why they were valued, applied to projects successfully and gave me my present comfortable retirement state, where I can indulge my hobbies serenely.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee


> Jan

[Peter Moylan]

If this trend of removing offensive parts of books continues, we might
end up with a Bible that looks like a Reader's Digest condensed book.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:38:34 AM UTC-6, occam wrote:
> On 17/04/2023 00:06, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 10:22:50 AM UTC-6, occam wrote:

...

> >> <Hmm.> Yet, to an alien intelligence, our mathematical symbols ( e.g
> >> ∇xE = - ∂B/∂t ) will be as meaningless as our language symbols (words).
> >> The physics will be the same.
> >>
> >> Whether there will be a one-to-one mapping between the two equations
> >> (human, alien) is not so clear to me.
> >
> > ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think his logic
> > was a little fuzzy.
> >
> Thank you. I'll track it down and read it soon. I was sure that the idea
> had been explored in an SF.

"Omnilingual", as you undoubtedly guessed. It's easy to find, since Piper's
copyrights were allowed to lapse after his suicide (Wikip). I just reread it
and thought it could have been a lot better, but it is the original SF story
on the subject, as far as I know.

--
Jerry Friedman

[J. J. Lodder]

You are way behind the times. See:
Reader's Digest Bible: Condensed from the Revised Standard Version Old
and New Testaments Hardcover – January 1, 1982 .

At Amazon for example,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:06:04 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think his logic
> was a little fuzzy.

I have a feeling I came across it in a collection called something like
"Great Science Fiction about Linguists," its decipherment methodology
is sound, and it was written in the wake of the furore over the decipherment
of Linear B. I never encountered Mr. or Ms. Piper anywhere else.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:14:25 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

> If this trend of removing offensive parts of books continues, we might
> end up with a Bible that looks like a Reader's Digest condensed book.

The militant atheist Ralph Ingersoll of the early 20th century took great
umbrage at what he considered the obscene expression "he that pisseth
against the wall," one of KJV's unfortunately literal translations of a Hebrew
idiom that simply means 'male'. He had a lot of complaints about the text.

The Deist Thomas Jefferson created his own Bible by snipping out all the
passages referencing the supernatural. (This wasn't known in his own time,
but it has since been published -- quite a thin book -- I think I bought it at the
Monticello gift shop.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Astonishing that Le Guin is barely mentioned in this vast article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_in_science_fiction

I do like the line "Science fiction highlights the common knowledge about
language change, which most writers demonstrated to be very little."

[lar3ryca]

Tanks for the pointer! I now have 36 /H. Beam Piper/ books to read!

> Wikip also gives a reference to an edited edition
> <http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan/omnilingual.html>
> with has the setting a bit modernised to get the focus
> on what it is about.
>
> Shock, horror, the women are no longer 'girls',
> and they don't chainsmoke.
> This is worse than writing the ugly people out of Roald Dahl,
>
> I'll have a look,
>
> Jan

--
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
—Anonymous

[lar3ryca]

On 2023-04-17 02:39, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Tanks for the pointer! I now have 36 /H. Beam Piper/ books to read!

> Wikip also gives a reference to an edited edition
> <http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan/omnilingual.html>
> with has the setting a bit modernised to get the focus
> on what it is about.
>
> Shock, horror, the women are no longer 'girls',
> and they don't chainsmoke.
> This is worse than writing the ugly people out of Roald Dahl,
>
> I'll have a look,
>
> Jan

[lar3ryca]

Seen in (I think) National Lampoon, in a list of Reader's Digest
condensed books:

Lord of the Rings.
Two guys go on vacation and throw a ring into a volcano.

--
I have a boomerang that won't come back. I call it my stick.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

You may find there's a reason that few of them are still read. /Little Fuzzy/
is the best-known.

--
Jerry Friedman

[lar3ryca]

Right. It would not be the first author that I've given up on.

--
The first rule of Synonym Club is:
You don't talk about, mention, speak of, discuss, natter or chat about
Synonym Club.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 07:33:06 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:15:58?AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:06:04?PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>
>> > ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think his logic
>> > was a little fuzzy.
>> I have a feeling I came across it in a collection called something like
>> "Great Science Fiction about Linguists," its decipherment methodology
>> is sound, and it was written in the wake of the furore over the decipherment
>> of Linear B. I never encountered Mr. or Ms. Piper anywhere else.
>
>Astonishing that Le Guin is barely mentioned in this vast article.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_in_science_fiction

"vast article" is right. Curious. Thanks.

I've read science fiction all my life. This talks about a whole lot
of books that I've never read or even heard of.

I looked for Brin and Elgin for their language relevance - each
got a sentence, so they were not totally ignored.

I guess that multiple books could be written on the subject.

>
>I do like the line "Science fiction highlights the common knowledge about
>language change, which most writers demonstrated to be very little."

--
Rich Ulrich

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 12:58:25 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 07:33:06 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:15:58?AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:06:04?PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> >> > ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think his logic
> >> > was a little fuzzy.
> >> I have a feeling I came across it in a collection called something like
> >> "Great Science Fiction about Linguists," its decipherment methodology
> >> is sound, and it was written in the wake of the furore over the decipherment
> >> of Linear B. I never encountered Mr. or Ms. Piper anywhere else.
> >
> >Astonishing that Le Guin is barely mentioned in this vast article.

Everyone knows, right, that her father was Alfred Kroeber, THE great
anthropologist of his day?

> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_in_science_fiction
>
> "vast article" is right. Curious. Thanks.
>
> I've read science fiction all my life. This talks about a whole lot
> of books that I've never read or even heard of.
>
> I looked for Brin and Elgin for their language relevance - each
> got a sentence, so they were not totally ignored.

Suzette Haden Elgin was one of the first feminist linguists, and
one of her specialties was verbal aggression. If Mr. Aman weren't
such an arrogant schmuck, he could have learned something from
her. I never met her, but she was active on LINGUIST List and/or
sci.lang back when they were actually used for discussions.

She phoned me a few times, though I don't know why, when she
was having some sort of copyright problems.

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:15:58?AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:06:04?PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >
> > > ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think his logic
> > > was a little fuzzy.
> > I have a feeling I came across it in a collection called something like
> > "Great Science Fiction about Linguists," its decipherment methodology
> > is sound, and it was written in the wake of the furore over the decipherment
> > of Linear B. I never encountered Mr. or Ms. Piper anywhere else.
>
> Astonishing that Le Guin is barely mentioned in this vast article.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_in_science_fiction
>
> I do like the line "Science fiction highlights the common knowledge about
> language change, which most writers demonstrated to be very little."

It is also a bit strange that the Wikipedia editor
completely ignores Wittgenstein's destructive comment:
"If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

CSL wrote seven small, beautiful books demonstrating that fact.

[Jerry Friedman]

Speaking of Lewis, the article doesn't mention Ransom's language
learning in /Out of the Silent Planet/.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

That's because lions don't build spaceships.

More to the point, people can learn to understand a lot of the communication
of animals, which isn't language, of course. I don't know what Wittgenstein
thought the basis of his comment was or why it would be taken seriously.

The article does mention "The Dance of the Changer and the Three", by
Terry Carr, but in connection with the aliens' modes of communication, not
as an unusual example where the narrator never succeeds in understanding
the aliens completely.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Phil Carmody]

nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>> On 16/04/23 05:07, Phil Carmody wrote:
>> > Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 7:43:11?PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan
>> >> wrote:

>> >>> ?xE = - ∂B/∂t
>> >>>

>> >>> You know what that means, and so do I, but half the readers of
>> >>> this posting will make no sense of it at all. I could put it in
>> >>> words as
>> >>>
>> >>> curl E equals minus partial dB dt
>> >>
>> >> Is that how you pronounce partial derivatives? I say "partial B
>> >> partial t".
>> >
>> > "partial d B by d t" as if partialness distributed over the normal d
>> > by d thing. In either case, the "by" is essential.
>>
>> Essential? This is the first time I've encountered someone who uses "by"
>> in that construct.
>
> When I was young I was very much instructed that dy/dx
> must NOT, NEVER, EVER be interpreted as dy divided by dx.

That's fair, as dy and dx aren't things with values that can be divided.
However, both derivations of the calculus explicity use divisions, and
the symbols now used explicitly hark back to those divisions. But
I definitely don't consider dy/dx to be anything to do with an actual
division.

> Only the combined symbol dy/dx considered as a whole
> was allowed to have meaning.

I'm less on board with that. d-by-dx is the indivisible operator (which
in some instances is just a function), but y could be any expression that
operator can operate on.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

Perhaps, and she from him.
You might have noticed however that trailblazers,
who open up new subjects, tend to do their own thing.
(which is more than enough to occupy them)

Jan

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:33:09 AM UTC-6, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:15:58 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:06:04 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >
> > > ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think his logic
> > > was a little fuzzy.
> > I have a feeling I came across it in a collection called something like
> > "Great Science Fiction about Linguists," its decipherment methodology
> > is sound, and it was written in the wake of the furore over the decipherment
> > of Linear B. I never encountered Mr. or Ms. Piper anywhere else.

> Astonishing that Le Guin is barely mentioned in this vast article.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_in_science_fiction

As an outstanding example of the "57 words for snow" thing?

Le Guin's most notable example of SF speculation about language, I'd say,
is the Old Speech, the language where the words for things are the true
words, so magic spells in that language work. But that's not linguistics.

I'd think /Always Coming Home/ should have been mentioned in the
section on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

> I do like the line "Science fiction highlights the common knowledge about
> language change, which most writers demonstrated to be very little."

Which is typical of the article in looking as if was written by someone who
didn't quite know English or academic English. There's a lot of that at
Wikipedia, but the article seems to have an unusual amount, for an article
that mostly covers material in English. (That hints at another problem,
which I can't do anything about.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[J. J. Lodder]

Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 2:02:05?PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:15:58?AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:06:04?PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think his logic
> > > > > was a little fuzzy.
> > > > I have a feeling I came across it in a collection called something
> > > > like "Great Science Fiction about Linguists," its decipherment
> > > > methodology is sound, and it was written in the wake of the furore
> > > > over the decipherment of Linear B. I never encountered Mr. or Ms.
> > > > Piper anywhere else.
> > >
> > > Astonishing that Le Guin is barely mentioned in this vast article.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_in_science_fiction
> > >
> > > I do like the line "Science fiction highlights the common knowledge about
> > > language change, which most writers demonstrated to be very little."
>
> > It is also a bit strange that the Wikipedia editor
> > completely ignores Wittgenstein's destructive comment:
> > "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."
>
> That's because lions don't build spaceships.

But the Kzinti do.

> More to the point, people can learn to understand a lot of the communication
> of animals, which isn't language, of course. I don't know what Wittgenstein
> thought the basis of his comment was or why it would be taken seriously.

Frans de Waal has his doubts. One of his books is titled:
"Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?"
It has a Kzin (oh well, a big cat) on the original cover.

> The article does mention "The Dance of the Changer and the Three", by
> Terry Carr, but in connection with the aliens' modes of communication, not
> as an unusual example where the narrator never succeeds in understanding
> the aliens completely.

Not familiar with that one, sorry,

Jan

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 2:48:38 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 2:02:05?PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:15:58?AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:06:04?PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think his logic
> > > > > > was a little fuzzy.
> > > > > I have a feeling I came across it in a collection called something
> > > > > like "Great Science Fiction about Linguists," its decipherment
> > > > > methodology is sound, and it was written in the wake of the furore
> > > > > over the decipherment of Linear B. I never encountered Mr. or Ms.
> > > > > Piper anywhere else.
> > > >
> > > > Astonishing that Le Guin is barely mentioned in this vast article.
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_in_science_fiction
> > > >
> > > > I do like the line "Science fiction highlights the common knowledge about
> > > > language change, which most writers demonstrated to be very little."
> >
> > > It is also a bit strange that the Wikipedia editor
> > > completely ignores Wittgenstein's destructive comment:
> > > "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."
> >
> > That's because lions don't build spaceships.

> But the Kzinti do.

And we can understand the Kzinti. There, I've run rings round you logically!

> > More to the point, people can learn to understand a lot of the communication
> > of animals, which isn't language, of course. I don't know what Wittgenstein
> > thought the basis of his comment was or why it would be taken seriously.

> Frans de Waal has his doubts. One of his books is titled:
> "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?"
> It has a Kzin (oh well, a big cat) on the original cover.

Having doubts (about how well we understand animal communication?) is
certainly reasonable. I did say "a lot", not "all". For Wittgenstein's dictum,
I'd need to know what he was thinking, why he was thinking it, and how it's
"destructive", as you put it, to the idea of communicating with aliens.

Could aliens show us something we would recognize as Maxwell's
equations?

> > The article does mention "The Dance of the Changer and the Three", by
> > Terry Carr, but in connection with the aliens' modes of communication, not
> > as an unusual example where the narrator never succeeds in understanding
> > the aliens completely.

> Not familiar with that one, sorry,

I'll just say that I like it better than "Omnilingual".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Moylan]

On 17/04/23 23:22, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>> If this trend of removing offensive parts of books continues, we
>> might end up with a Bible that looks like a Reader's Digest
>> condensed book.
>
> You are way behind the times. See: Reader's Digest Bible: Condensed
> from the Revised Standard Version Old and New Testaments Hardcover –
> January 1, 1982 .
>
> At Amazon for example,

Remarkable. But did they do the condensation by removing the offensive
parts? There are many of them. The entire Book of Job would have to go,
for example, because it's basically about torture of an innocent person.
And that business of taking Isaac up the mountain: these days, Abraham
would be under a court order never to have any contact with children,
and God would be in Hell.

[Peter Moylan]

I have some collections of early SF. For example, Asimov and Greeberg's
"Before the Golden Age". What they show up, more than anything, is how
bad the writing was back then.

[bozo de niro]

If the lion could speak English we could.

[bozo de niro]

Glad you mentioned Job. I'm weak on biblical characters and metaphors. Especially Job and Jonah.
They both begin with J. Are they introduced in the bible contemporaneously and are the names meant to be alliterative for some reason?
OT: My computer has been possessed and is seriously haunted or has been co-opted to enlighten me and maybe you.

[bozo de niro]

Are there any mentions of Bedbugs in the bible?

[occam]

On 17/04/2023 22:22, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 2:02:05 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:15:58?AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:06:04?PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think his logic
>>>>> was a little fuzzy.
>>>> I have a feeling I came across it in a collection called something like
>>>> "Great Science Fiction about Linguists," its decipherment methodology
>>>> is sound, and it was written in the wake of the furore over the decipherment
>>>> of Linear B. I never encountered Mr. or Ms. Piper anywhere else.
>>>
>>> Astonishing that Le Guin is barely mentioned in this vast article.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_in_science_fiction
>>>
>>> I do like the line "Science fiction highlights the common knowledge about
>>> language change, which most writers demonstrated to be very little."
>
>> It is also a bit strange that the Wikipedia editor
>> completely ignores Wittgenstein's destructive comment:
>> "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."
>
> That's because lions don't build spaceships.

...nor use mathematics to model their environment

>
> More to the point, people can learn to understand a lot of the communication
> of animals, which isn't language, of course.

I am worried by the implication of that statement. The point of language
is communication. Is communication - by means other than human language
- not communication? Is 'body language' a misnomer, just because it has
no verbs, adjectives or any of the other rules we ascribe to a language?

[J. J. Lodder]

Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 2:48:38?PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 2:02:05?PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > > > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:15:58?AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels:

> > > > > > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:06:04?PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think
> > > > > > > his logic was a little fuzzy.
> > > > > > I have a feeling I came across it in a collection called
> > > > > > something like "Great Science Fiction about Linguists," its
> > > > > > decipherment methodology is sound, and it was written in the
> > > > > > wake of the furore over the decipherment of Linear B. I never
> > > > > > encountered Mr. or Ms. Piper anywhere else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Astonishing that Le Guin is barely mentioned in this vast article.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_in_science_fiction
> > > > >
> > > > > I do like the line "Science fiction highlights the common
> > > > > knowledge about language change, which most writers demonstrated
> > > > > to be very little."
> > >
> > > > It is also a bit strange that the Wikipedia editor
> > > > completely ignores Wittgenstein's destructive comment:
> > > > "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."
> > >
> > > That's because lions don't build spaceships.
>
> > But the Kzinti do.
>
> And we can understand the Kzinti. There, I've run rings round you
> logically!

Not really.
All we do is defeat them all the time in those Human-Kzin wars.
But that is what they were created for to begin with.

> > > More to the point, people can learn to understand a lot of the
> > > communication of animals, which isn't language, of course. I don't
> > > know what Wittgenstein thought the basis of his comment was or why it
> > > would be taken seriously.
>
> > Frans de Waal has his doubts. One of his books is titled:
> > "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?"
> > It has a Kzin (oh well, a big cat) on the original cover.
>
> Having doubts (about how well we understand animal communication?) is
> certainly reasonable. I did say "a lot", not "all". For Wittgenstein's
> dictum, I'd need to know what he was thinking, why he was thinking it, and
> how it's "destructive", as you put it, to the idea of communicating with
> aliens.

If we cannot understand a speaking lion, close family,
separated from us by at best fifty milion years of evolution,
what hope is there for understanding LGM? (or worse, BEMs)

> Could aliens show us something we would recognize as Maxwell's
> equations?

No idea. If we actually met them I think the best hope
would be to show each other demonstration experiments,
and how to handle and predict the results.
(and go on teaching from there)
That was one of the ways in which people familiarised themselves
with Newtonian mechanics, from the 18th century onwards.

> > > The article does mention "The Dance of the Changer and the Three", by
> > > Terry Carr, but in connection with the aliens' modes of communication, not
> > > as an unusual example where the narrator never succeeds in understanding
> > > the aliens completely.
>
> > Not familiar with that one, sorry,
>
> I'll just say that I like it better than "Omnilingual".

OK, I'll try to have a look at it,
(think I have it somewhere)

Jan

BTW, how do you like Fred Hoyle's take on it,
in 'The Black Cloud' and 'A for Andromeda'?
(intelligent communication on basis of radio signals only,
and pattern recognition practised on them)

[J. J. Lodder]

bozo de niro <bosod...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wittgenstein in "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."
does assume that the lion could speak English.

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 4:22:44 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 2:02:05 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 10:15:58?AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 6:06:04?PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> > > > > ObSF: "Omilingual", by H. Beam Piper, though some may think his logic
> > > > > was a little fuzzy.
> > > > I have a feeling I came across it in a collection called something like
> > > > "Great Science Fiction about Linguists," its decipherment methodology
> > > > is sound, and it was written in the wake of the furore over the decipherment
> > > > of Linear B. I never encountered Mr. or Ms. Piper anywhere else.
> > > Astonishing that Le Guin is barely mentioned in this vast article.
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_in_science_fiction
> > > I do like the line "Science fiction highlights the common knowledge about
> > > language change, which most writers demonstrated to be very little."
> > It is also a bit strange that the Wikipedia editor
> > completely ignores Wittgenstein's destructive comment:
> > "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."

When did he allegedly say that?

He was in Oxford for short stretches in 1950 and 1951 and may have
been given the new *The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe* to cheer
him on his sickbed, He may have known of Lewis as a scholar of
English literature long before that. and so been curious about the work.

> That's because lions don't build spaceships.

Well, the vast article does start with Tolkien, which I found surprising.

> More to the point, people can learn to understand a lot of the communication
> of animals, which isn't language, of course. I don't know what Wittgenstein
> thought the basis of his comment was or why it would be taken seriously.

That's a big problem with LW. He's gnomic. And barely contextual.

> The article does mention "The Dance of the Changer and the Three", by
> Terry Carr, but in connection with the aliens' modes of communication, not
> as an unusual example where the narrator never succeeds in understanding
> the aliens completely.

Does anyone ever truly understand anyone completely?

[Jerry Friedman]

We converse with them too. You do remember the job description of
the Kzin in /Ringworld/?

Anyway, the reason I quoted Python is that I didn't think this was a
serious part of our concentration.

> But that is what they were created for to begin with.

I agree.

> > > > More to the point, people can learn to understand a lot of the
> > > > communication of animals, which isn't language, of course. I don't
> > > > know what Wittgenstein thought the basis of his comment was or why it
> > > > would be taken seriously.
> >
> > > Frans de Waal has his doubts. One of his books is titled:
> > > "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?"
> > > It has a Kzin (oh well, a big cat) on the original cover.
> >
> > Having doubts (about how well we understand animal communication?) is
> > certainly reasonable. I did say "a lot", not "all". For Wittgenstein's
> > dictum, I'd need to know what he was thinking, why he was thinking it, and
> > how it's "destructive", as you put it, to the idea of communicating with
> > aliens.

> If we cannot understand a speaking lion, close family,
> separated from us by at best fifty milion years of evolution,
> what hope is there for understanding LGM? (or worse, BEMs)

Maybe the reason we can't understand a speaking lion is that it doesn't
have the intelligence to make itself understood.

The question sometimes addressed and more often ignored in SF is:
If aliens think more or less as well as people, how differently from people
could they think? Lions are much less intelligent than us, so they're
irrelevant to the question. And I haven't seen any reason to take
the quotation from Wittgenstein seriously, much less think it could
destroy anything.

> > Could aliens show us something we would recognize as Maxwell's
> > equations?

> No idea.

I thought you said earlier that their Maxwell's equations would have to
be essentially the same as ours. But I agree with your "No idea."

> If we actually met them I think the best hope
> would be to show each other demonstration experiments,
> and how to handle and predict the results.
> (and go on teaching from there)

Maybe teaching by both sides.

> That was one of the ways in which people familiarised themselves
> with Newtonian mechanics, from the 18th century onwards.

Makes sense.

> > > > The article does mention "The Dance of the Changer and the Three", by
> > > > Terry Carr, but in connection with the aliens' modes of communication, not
> > > > as an unusual example where the narrator never succeeds in understanding
> > > > the aliens completely.
> >
> > > Not familiar with that one, sorry,
> >
> > I'll just say that I like it better than "Omnilingual".
> OK, I'll try to have a look at it,
> (think I have it somewhere)
>
> Jan
>
> BTW, how do you like Fred Hoyle's take on it,
> in 'The Black Cloud' and 'A for Andromeda'?
> (intelligent communication on basis of radio signals only,
> and pattern recognition practised on them)

I might have read those as a teenager. Other people have done
similar things--maybe Jack McDevitt? It certainly seems possible,
though I've thought about such books that they were underestimating
the difficulty. One question is whether it's possible that we'd never
be able to figure them out.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

It does? I thought it might mean that if a lion could speak, he wouldn't
be able to speak a human language.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

Languages have far more complexity and greater capabilities than any other
form of communication we know of.

> Is 'body language' a misnomer, just because it has
> no verbs, adjectives or any of the other rules we ascribe to a language?

...

We casually use "language" that way--cf. "the language of honeybees"--but
in the sense I was using "language" in, "body language" is not language.
All you can say in body language is simple, though sometimes eloquent,
statements about your feelings and self-image. You can say the same
things in English or any other human language (including the sign languages).
But you can say far more in English et al., including this whole discussion.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

I got the message that you're better off being prodigal, than sticking to
the faith. I think Mormons are allowed time off before getting back 'On
Faith'.

I'm not Abel to confirm this.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[lar3ryca]

You seem to be saying that the size of the 'vocabulary' determines
whether or not it's a language.

Just because a cat, for example, can communicate only a relatively small
number of concepts, it does not mean that they are not communicating.

Similarly, 'body language', including facial expressions, movement of
body parts, and hand gestures can communicate a concept, often in fewer
'words'.

--
Which odd number becomes even if you take away a letter?
(S)even.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Sorry if I seemed to be saying that. I did mention complexity above. Human
languages allow conditional constructions, mentions of the past and future,
nesting of clauses and phrases, and such. "If I see the man who I saw at the
store where I bought a pair of shoes yesterday, I think I'll tell him the Chinese
tattoo on his arm doesn't mean what he probably thinks it means." You can't
say anything anywhere near that complicated in body language or the language
of honeybees or lion communication.

(Actually, though, I can't read Chinese.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 11:02:48 AM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> I got the message that you're better off being prodigal, than sticking to
> the faith. I think Mormons are allowed time off before getting back 'On
> Faith'.

Amish

[Sam Plusnet]

On 18-Apr-23 9:20, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> If we cannot understand a speaking lion, close family,
> separated from us by at best fifty milion years of evolution,
> what hope is there for understanding LGM? (or worse, BEMs)

Pratchett side-stepped the speaking lion question, and instead posited a
camel which was the (Disk) world's greatest mathematician.

Holding a conversation with the highly intelligent 'You Bastard' would
be just as challenging as the lion.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Bebercito]

Le mardi 18 avril 2023 à 19:45:41 UTC+2, Sam Plusnet a écrit :
> On 18-Apr-23 9:20, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > If we cannot understand a speaking lion, close family,
> > separated from us by at best fifty milion years of evolution,
> > what hope is there for understanding LGM? (or worse, BEMs)
> Pratchett side-stepped the speaking lion question, and instead posited a
> camel which was the (Disk) world's greatest mathematician.

It must have had "la bosse des maths".

[J. J. Lodder]

An Abel inversion will take care of that,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Bebercito <bebe...@aol.com> wrote:

> Le mardi 18 avril 2023 à 19:45:41 UTC+2, Sam Plusnet a écrit :
> > On 18-Apr-23 9:20, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > If we cannot understand a speaking lion, close family,
> > > separated from us by at best fifty milion years of evolution,
> > > what hope is there for understanding LGM? (or worse, BEMs)
> > Pratchett side-stepped the speaking lion question, and instead posited a
> > camel which was the (Disk) world's greatest mathematician.
>
> It must have had "la bosse des maths".

Of een 'wiskundeknobbel'.

But Anglosaxons don't know about that one,

Jan

[Jerry Friedman]

In Anglophonia, camels have humps and a talent is or was a
(phrenological) bump, so Bebercito's pun wouldn't work.

--
Jerry Friedman

[lar3ryca]

Right, but I assume from your last sentence that you do consider 'body
language' and the language of animals to be actual languages.

>
> (Actually, though, I can't read Chinese.)
>

--

I am the Ghost of Christmas Future Imperfect Conditional.
I bring news of what would have been going to happen if
you were not to have been going to change your ways.

[Peter Moylan]

On 18/04/23 23:46, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:20:06 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Could aliens show us something we would recognize as Maxwell's
>>> equations?
>
>> No idea.
>
> I thought you said earlier that their Maxwell's equations would have
> to be essentially the same as ours. But I agree with your "No
> idea."

Before Maxwell, there was existing theory covering various aspects of
electricity and magnetism. Maxwell's big contribution was to put all
these together, ending up with a unified description that reduced a lot
of equations to just four. (And of course he didn't do it alone. It's
arguable that the credit should really go to Heaviside and Hertz.)

A part of the simplification involved using new mathematical notation
using concepts such as the curl of a vector field. A similar thing has
happened multiple times in the history of science and mathematics: new
understanding coming from the introduction of better notation.

It is at least conceivable that another society could come up with a
different simplification, coming up with something entirely different
from Maxwell's equations, but ultimately expressing the same truths.

[Mark Brader]

Peter Moylan:

> Before Maxwell, there was existing theory covering various aspects of
> electricity and magnetism. Maxwell's big contribution was to put all

> these together...

http://live.staticflickr.com/1492/24742615591_11cc0d9286_b.jpg

--
Mark Brader | "The speed of sound is considerably less than the
Toronto | speed of light -- that is why some people appear bright
m...@vex.net | until you hear them talk."

[J. J. Lodder]

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 18/04/23 23:46, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 2:20:06?AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Could aliens show us something we would recognize as Maxwell's
> >>> equations?
> >
> >> No idea.
> >
> > I thought you said earlier that their Maxwell's equations would have
> > to be essentially the same as ours. But I agree with your "No
> > idea."
>
> Before Maxwell, there was existing theory covering various aspects of
> electricity and magnetism. Maxwell's big contribution was to put all
> these together, ending up with a unified description that reduced a lot
> of equations to just four. (And of course he didn't do it alone. It's
> arguable that the credit should really go to Heaviside and Hertz.)
>
> A part of the simplification involved using new mathematical notation
> using concepts such as the curl of a vector field. A similar thing has
> happened multiple times in the history of science and mathematics: new
> understanding coming from the introduction of better notation.
>
> It is at least conceivable that another society could come up with a
> different simplification, coming up with something entirely different
> from Maxwell's equations, but ultimately expressing the same truths.

If so, there must be a translation.
Compare wave mechanics and matrix mechanics,
for a possible example.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:

> Peter Moylan:
> > Before Maxwell, there was existing theory covering various aspects of
> > electricity and magnetism. Maxwell's big contribution was to put all
> > these together...
>
> http://live.staticflickr.com/1492/24742615591_11cc0d9286_b.jpg

Which is obviously wrong,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Jerry Friedman <jerry.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes.
En een dromedaris heeft een bult, en kamelen hebben bulten, dus...

Jan