maths...

[dannyday5821]

whats the purpose of mathamatics? ive never believed in it. the world of math seems set back from the apparent reality or the real.

for example, i have two batteries and a non-working remote. maths would say i have three objects. i say i have one. a now working remote. i know im right. math says im wrong. Of course, i understand that without math, i wouldnt be typing this, infact, i wouldnt even be at work.

more importantly, i want to know this. was math created, or discovered? but really...what is the penultimate purpose of math?

[Loosehead]

now take a deep breath. WTF are you on about the remote anology is total bull, it's a question of definition, I mean if you go down to the molecular level you zillions of objects. How can you not believe in it? I mean you agree 2+2=4 right?

Maths is discovered it's the universal truth. It's the only common language. I don't know about the penultimate purpose of maths but the ultimate purpose is to facilitate understanding and prediction.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think I can do much better than Marcus Du Sautoy's definition that maths is about finding patterns. He's a maths professor at Oxford so he ought to know.

The nature of patterns is such that if you understand one you can often predict what will happen in the future which is what makes it so very powerful.

Whether maths is invented or discovered is a bit of a minefield - mathematicans will almost always say discoverred, but I'd probably say it depends.

Most Mathematics is based on axioms - these are principles that are regarded as self evident and do not need to be proved.

Consequently mathematical "discoveries" depend on these axioms being true.

One axion was/is called rather grandly the 5th parallel postulate turned out not to be necessarily true. This opened up a whole field of mathematics called "non-euclidean geometry" and is used in describing the geometry of the Universe

If you invalidate an axiom it all comes tumbling down which is why I can't quite agree with Loosehead's description of mathematics as a Universal truth.

But it's the nearest thing we have.

[Loosehead]

yes jake but surely if you invalidate an axiom it wasn't one in the first place. Maths is there to be discovered, if we make errors and false assumptions that doesn't change the underlying truth. That's why I described it as such.

[jake-the-peg]

Really it just restricts the areas that the theorums relying on it were valid for.

In the same way that relativity did not make Newton "Wrong" non-Euclidian Geometry did not make Euclidian Geometry "wrong" it just limited it to a smaller subset.

That's why I take slight issue with the term Universal Truth

In fact it may never be possible to solve some mathematical problems

Godel's incompleteness theorum tells us that there some things in mathematics which are true but can never be proved.

Turing made this worse and showed that it may not be possible even to know which problems are or are not provable at all.

In the same way that Heisenberg undermined the old deterministic views of physics, Godel and Turing did the same for Mathematics.

They showed that there were limits to it's power and in a way made it less Universal

[Clanad]

Probably pedantic, butI think there's an important part of Godel's Theorem that you're omitting jake... What Godel (I need an umlaut, anyone?) actually says is that within a given branch of mathmatics, one can find apparent truths that cannot, diffinitevly, be proven when relying on the axioms and rules of the system. However, those apparent truths can may be proven by providing a new set of rules and axioms. Godel does clearly state, though, that this only introduces new problems since the original field of axioms and rules have now been enlarged and, in all probablility, now includes more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own new defining set of rules...

[dannyday5821]

hmm...well, i dont entirley believe that 2+2 is 4, but then i dont fully understand why mathamatics argues that this is correct. perhaps Loosehead you could explain to me how and why this 2+2 equals 4.

why is 2+2 4? why cant it be 5? or 6? or 100?
what would happen if somehow...someone managed to prove that 2+2 is NOT 4...wow...what would happen to the world...?

[chadad]

I suppose that 2 plus another 2, could be construed as 22.
This would give you a figure that is 5.5 times the size of the former answer.
Maths is basically a form of shorthand.

Your formula would read (( Bx2 ) + NWR ) = WR.
.
Instead of,
If you have two batteries and a non working remote control. Combined together they will make a functioning remote control.

Any way, it saves an awful lot of chalk.

[mibn2cweus]

Here we go again!

As for the purpose, there is no other purpose that can be justified other than the purpose of making life a more meaningful and worthwhile experience. In this regard math is a method for relating, determining and communicating quantitative relationships.

If I have two remotes, each with two dead batteries, I go to the store and purchase 4 new batteries, (not 22???). With the money thus saved I can also afford to also pick up a snack plus a beverage to enjoy whilst watching the news and saving my mates favorite show on the recorder. If you can not relate to that then I have failed to demonstrated any basis for incorporating the utility of math, that made all of the previous alternatives possible, into your daily regime.