How abstract can math get and still be useful?

[Philosophy Explorer]

I would agree linear operations are a step by step procedure reasoning process. Another way of looking at this would be the ability to recognize patterns. Computers can also do this as well. Once we have grasped the idea then we have an apriori understanding. In other words we don't have to keep carry out operations ad infinitum in order to keep prove the rule.

It is their apriori understanding that allows for what Blaggs has already told us. That is to say, for the want of a better word, "novelty". Imaginary numbers would be an example of novelty being introduced to solve an intractable mathematical problem.



P.S.

Computers can apply reasoning processes, but they have no appreciation of the process. This is why humans and not computers can come up with novel solutions.

In other words, computers can do extremely complex math, like playing chess on master lvl with the very best humans, but not able to do a simple conversation, because conversating requires abstract thinking which computers can't yet do, only on very low lvl.

If one observers any of Philosophy Explorer where he tries to say something intelligent, he utterly fails. This isn't a demeaning attempt, but a objective observation. I have cast perals before him and it's totally wasted as he will not comprehend it.

Sorry about the bad grammar on my part. It really annoys the hell out of me that I can never pick up the grammatical errors in my original postings. It is only upon a second or third reading that I find the mistakes.

Ginkgo, nobody has accused you of doing bad grammar on this thread. If there were any I'm sure you would correct them.

I'm more concerned with bad manners than bad grammar. Apparently one of our fellow members has more time on his hands than he knows what to do with.

PhilX

[Skip]

It just seems a bit strange to start lots of one sentence threads and then just leave them to others. It feels like trolling.

What kind of troll would talk about mathematics, fcs? And what would they be trying to accomplish? I mean, even a troll has some aim or desire - no?

I've seen a few poster like PhilX. When they arrive at a new forum, they ask a scatter-shot of questions - all the odd things they normally wonder or talk or read about - to see whether there is any interest in those subjects and what the spectrum of opinion is. Me, I have only a couple of interests - not math(s), and only the softest of sciences. Maybe other people on a forum have one or two interests and don't answer most of the questions. You do know response is optional? Asking a bunch of questions at once might give someone a quick survey of the range of interests on that forum and some idea of how well he'll fit in.

Me, I know enough not to prod the local bears - but then, I'm old and canny.

[HexHammer]

You do know response is optional? Asking a bunch of questions at once might give someone a quick survey of the range of interests on that forum and some idea of how well he'll fit in.

Not quite, you are only speaking in general terms and making up assumptions, you havn't been paying close attention.

Ofcause it's everybody's right to ask questions on an open forum such as this, but it becomes annoying when the asker doesn't participate on an intellecutal lvl as we might expect, and when he makes such a barrage of questions and NEVER ever comes up with ANY intelligent answers, nor seems to really want an intellectual discussion, then it seems like he ONLY wants attention and he has already revealed that he only really want to make threads where lots of people can particiapte and have a good discussion, then he has shown his true colors.
This is excatly what I have said all along, long before he revealed his true intentions, but people doesn't get wiser, they live in their naive views, just like people couldn't believe that an US president would lie about an illegal war in Iraq.

..people are so naive, and even more heartacheingly they refuse blatant contradictiry evidense!

[uwot]

Ofcause it's everybody's right to ask questions on an open forum such as this, but it becomes annoying when the asker doesn't participate on an intellecutal lvl as we might expect, and when he makes such a barrage of questions and NEVER ever comes up with ANY intelligent answers, nor seems to really want an intellectual discussion, then it seems like he ONLY wants attention and he has already revealed that he only really want to make threads where lots of people can particiapte and have a good discussion, then he has shown his true colors.

Mr Hammer, the majority of your posts complain about the lack of intellectual content in other people's contributions. Describing posts as nonsense and babble is not itself intellectually demanding. As it stands, you have treated us to 1105 posts. My guess is that you would struggle to find the odd 5 that have content that any average 6 year old would find challenging. When have you ever said anything clever or interesting?

The irony of this post is not lost on me. I will eat my hat if you get it; yours too, if you wish.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If you don't like the topic, then put up some threads of your own on what you do like to talk about.

PhilX

I gave up on making an effort with thread-starters. They were either ignored or trolled. One sentence thread-starters appear to be what people want on here.

[HexHammer]

If you don't like the topic, then put up some threads of your own on what you do like to talk about.

PhilX

I gave up on making an effort with thread-starters. They were either ignored or trolled. One sentence thread-starters appear to be what people want on here.

People like to guess and spekulate, cozy chat without any obligation to produce any definitive intelligent result.

[uwot]

People like to guess and spekulate, cozy chat without any obligation to produce any definitive intelligent result.

And others like to criticise questions, without offering any evidence that they have the faculties to respond to them intelligently.

[Wyman]

just like people couldn't believe that an US president would lie about an illegal war in Iraq.

I knew he was lying while he was doing it. I hate it when naive people revise history to make it seem like everyone else was naive too. It's like in America, when the people who were for the war (maybe 60 percent?) say, 'We were all for the war back then.' I like to point out that, no we weren't 'all' for it. Sorry to go off-topic.

[Wyman]

I'm sure that Blaggard would be familiar with the following.

We have the factorial. A few examples are:

4! = 4•3•2•1 = 24
3! = 3•2•1 = 6
2! = 2•1 = 2
1! = 1 = 1

I'm sure you see the pattern. What would surprise many people is that the factorial can be extended in a consistent way. For example 0! = 1 (can you define 1/2! in a consistent manner?) In fact the factorial makes sense except for negative integers.

The point I'm making is that restricting the meaning of numbers may have inhibited math progress (as Blaggard has pointed with the so-called imaginary numbers). Still one has to wonder whether there's a limit to abstract math.

That isn't in any way abstract, only liniar, you don't understand it and probaly apply a parrot speech because you heard someone else say it was abstract.

I have to agree with Hexhammer, but not in spirit. Let me translate: You are being vague about what you mean by 'abstract' and 'useful.'

Mathematicians traditionally do not care about usefulness; and they will be as abstract as they want to be. Physics picks up on mathematical systems and concepts when they become useful from time to time. How 'abstract' an area of mathematics is has no bearing whatsoever on usefulness. That is, if it's useful, its useful - who cares how abstract?

Feynman had a funny joke (I'm sure much will be lost here in translation, but it's in his lecture on youtube on the relation of math to physics) - physicists will ask a mathematician to solve a problem involving 3 dimensions. The mathematician will come back with a hugely complex answer involving 'n' dimensions. The physicist says, "Geez, I said three dimensions, that's overkill." Of course later something comes up where more dimensions become relevant and the physicist has to go back, hat in hand, and ask "Um, about those extra dimensions you were talking about...'"

[HexHammer]

I have to agree with Hexhammer, but not in spirit. Let me translate: You are being vague about what you mean by 'abstract' and 'useful.'

Wyman maybe you missed the following from P E, which clearly shows he doesn't really understand anything of what he has parroted, there's something terrible wrong with the way he's thinking.

Wrong and wrong. Anything that originates from our minds is abstract. I see you're employing one of your favorite phrases, a parrot speech. Mind telling me where I heard it?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Hex said:

"Wyman maybe you missed the following from P E, which clearly shows he doesn't really understand anything of what he has parroted, there's something terrible wrong with the way he's thinking."

And clearly you don't know grammar and you don't know how to spell, you're bad-mannered, you ran over to the GP section to check up on me which shows you don't know squat about philosophy (I rank Veg one notch above you as he didn't do that).

As to how precise I make my threads, I deliberately make them a little vague to generalize them as to help encourage conversation, among other reasons. As to what's philosophy and what isn't is a matter of opinion. For me it's a matter of exploration, but for Hex he hasn't shown an ounce of interest in exploring topics and trying to dictate to me what to do. Because of what Hex has done, I now have the urge to double my rate of posting one sentenced OPs and will expand upon my topics.

PhilX

[HexHammer]

I deliberately make them a little vague to generalize them as to help encourage conversation

..as I've said all along, he's not interested in anwers, only cozy chat which this quote clearly shows, resulting in posts that doesn't have any value other than keeping the debate alive to get attention.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I deliberately make them a little vague to generalize them as to help encourage conversation

..as I've said all along, he's not interested in anwers, only cozy chat which this quote clearly shows, resulting in posts that doesn't have any value other than keeping the debate alive to get attention.

Simply not true. I'm also interested in answers along with the "cozy chat" and isn't it true that part of philosophy is about debating?

PhilX

[Wyman]

you're bad-mannered

- I nominate this for understatement of the year

Along with:

Bobevanson enjoys living in America
Miley Cyrus is not shy
Hitler was irritable

[HexHammer]

I deliberately make them a little vague to generalize them as to help encourage conversation

..as I've said all along, he's not interested in anwers, only cozy chat which this quote clearly shows, resulting in posts that doesn't have any value other than keeping the debate alive to get attention.

Simply not true. I'm also interested in answers along with the "cozy chat" and isn't it true that part of philosophy is about debating?

A single quote where you prove you can say something intelligent, should satisfy my request, but let me guess you make a lame ass excuse not to.

..because you can't!