European Tribune

Display:
Almost all of it. Which parts of mathematics deal solely with abstract symbols? Which value of "abstract" are you using?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 08:21:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Which part of mathematics don't deal with abstract symbols, i.e. with arbitrarily chosen words or signs that point not to a "real" entity from the concrete world, but to a thought entity that behaves according to some abstract hypotheses ?

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 08:28:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do a fair bit of category theory: I think that the set of natural numbers is a concrete example. To my way of thinking, in the context of mathematics, an abstract symbol is one that doesn't have any meaning behind it.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 08:31:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you mean? The free monoidal category on one object is indexed by the natural numbers.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 08:41:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, and that's a concrete example as well.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 09:12:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't really see how N is concrete, i.e. how it has an existence in the real world.

In my view N only has the meaning we give it through axioms ; axioms which are rules on how to write proofs.

What do you mean by 'meaning' ? :)

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 08:45:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The natural numbers predate the Peano axioms bu how many millennia exactly?

Axiomatization is not the prerequisite for mathematics, it's the endpoint.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 09:08:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Euclid did have an axiomatisation of natural numbers... We switched axioms more recently, but axiomatisation is as old as mathematics.

Also, is R more concrete than the set of p-adic numbers? is Euclidean geometry less abstract than other geometries ?

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 09:22:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, spherical geometry is more concrete than Euclidean geometry because it is the geometry of the visual field.

R is more concrete than the set of p-adic numbers. That is why it was invented centuries earlier.

And while Euclid and his contemporaries had axioms, mathematics had existed before them. The greeks may have invented the axiomatic-deductive method, but they did not invent mathematics.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 09:40:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then why was Euclidean geometry invented a long time before spherical geometry ?

Which geometry is concrete to a blind person ?*

It seems you define concrete as intuitively accessible to the human brain... It makes god a very concrete concept nowadays.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 09:45:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems you define concrete as intuitively accessible to the human brain...
Where else does human mathematics come from?

As for spherical geometry being invented after euclidean geometry, I don't know what came first, but spherical geometry was highly developed by babylonian astronomers while the Babylonian value for pi was still the integer 3.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 09:55:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is mathematics dependent on society ? We were wondering elsewhere on the relative intuitiveness of fractions and decimals. If concreteness is linked to intuitive understandability and conceivability, depending on whether a society insists on decimals or fractions one concept or the other becomes more concrete. Concreteness  isn't constant across human brains, according to your definition...

Also, is there mathematical truth independent of thought processes : is logic only a cognitive process ? Colman was contrasting logics with the rest of mathematics. Is logic "true" because it agrees with our thought processes - but many people think without adhering to the laws of logic. Why would logic be different from the rest of maths ?

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 10:16:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you mean by 'real world'?

Concepts of abstract and concrete can depend where you're looking at them from: N can be relatively concrete. In a moment we can consider what is concrete, precisely.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 13th, 2007 at 09:11:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
On Rhetoric
by rg - Dec 3
82 comments

Bugger Thy Neighbour
by redstar - Dec 3
264 comments

Not quite the 'perfect fix'?
by djhabakkuk - Dec 3
4 comments

After Democracy
by marco - Dec 3
44 comments

Dancing in the Streets
by rdf - Dec 4

Me and my son, a Shministim
by shergald - Dec 4
3 comments

Georgia on my mind...[Updated]
by Frank Schnittger - Dec 3
22 comments

Early Friday Photography Blog No. 64
by LEP - Dec 4
6 comments

Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series