[lit-ideas] Re: math question
- From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:11:17 +0900
What statistician George Box said about statistical models may be true of all
that we take to be knowledge, "Essentially all models are wrong, but some are
useful."
John
Sent from my iPad
On 2012/04/10, at 1:22, Julie Krueger <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If I were a mathematician, I would know what it is that I'm asking, what it
> is that I want to know, but then, I'd know it.
>
> The sequence of mathematical notation is what it is because it symbolizes,
> expresses, a reality out there, surely -- not that humans have invented this
> reality. If one does this series of multiplications and additions of
> quantities, an interesting pattern emerges in the symbols used to represent
> these manipulations of quantities. The pattern seems to call attention to a
> principle in mathematics rather than being a symptom of our notational
> invention. There must be a theoretical "because" to the question of why
> these patterns occur the way they do.
>
> In music, the circle of fifths isn't just some cute trick or device for
> memorizing the progression of sharps and flats through major keys. It
> describes a fundamental part of the structure of music, the way western music
> is woven.
>
> I suppose the (a?) problem here is that I am looking for a brief explanation
> of something in theoretical math, instead of taking a multitude (how many
> explanations in a multitude?) of classes. (What's the square root of a
> negative multitude?)
>
> When "we" make mathematical statements are we using symbols to represent how
> reality works, or simply inventing a code?
>
> Julie Krueger
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Paul Stone <pastone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have to agree with Adriano... there is nothing mysterious, or even
> explainable about mathematics. It just IS! You can tell me WHY 2+2=4 REALLY.
> Except to describe the fact that it does.
>
> just my 1+1 cents.
>
> p
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:15 AM, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> the sequence has nothing surprising (take a look at terry tao's work if you
> like surprises)
>
>
> ? נכון
> >>> Julie Krueger <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx> 09/04/2012 01:19 AM >>>
>
> So from all this I take it that no one can, in fact, explain the why of the
> math sequence?
>
> Julie Krueger
>
>
>
Other related posts:
