On Tue, 1 Jan 2013, IVP wrote:

>> Mathematics is made up
>
> Yes. And no. Originally maths was based on the observable - the number
> in a crowd, marks on a clay tablet - and the basic functions were derived
> from those
>
> Then more abstract functions - trigonometry, angles, shapes, volumes,
> lattices, arrays, progressions, primes etc
>
> Lately it's predictions, probabilities, complexes
>
> I used to think esoteric maths was all smoke and mirrors, until one
> starts to notice that 'obscure pointless' proofs often go full circle bac=
k
> to a previously-mysterious observation by being linked to other 'obscure
> pointless' proofs, fitting like two perfect jigsaw pieces. And then it al=
l
> makes sense

I don't dispute the beauty of math just what it is based on :-)

The way it is it's own proof and anything that cannot be easily explained=20
by it is wierd. It's like taking a picture, chopping it up into a jigsaw=20
and then when all the pieces fit back together saying it is proof that=20
the picture is valid. Then to make maters worse when we find that the=20
picture behaves differently to the object it represents, we start patching=
=20
the picture or making up complex reasons why, instead of changing the way=20
we take pictures.

>
> Ultimately, maths must be seen, and proved, to explain or even discover
> a phenomenum. It can't always explain "why" something is, but it usually
> can explain "how" it is. Even if I don't understand a word of it !!

I don't dispute that. I am simply saying that math should be simpler than=20
it is and all the complexity is pointing to us getting the basics wrong.

>
> Just my (pi/(4^2i) + 0.71j) cents worth

Pi... what a smoking gun :-)

Regards
Sergio
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.