Mathematics as a way of knowing

[Chinaski]

[...] Theoretically, machines (designed correctly) are perfect, because the mathematics involved in creating and operating them are relatively perfect...

I feel you need some theory of perfection in order to support this article. Is not the mathematics involved in a game of football also perfect? Is not imperfect mathematics just wrong mathematics or incorrectly conceived and/or processed mathematics? How perfect is relatively perfect? As you suggest, a poorly conceived machine is 'perfect' if it matched the designers conceptions and expectations, and regardless of its ability to perform or fulfil the task it was designed for efficiently - or perfectly. This is not within the sphere of mathematics.

FS,

Show me a perfect machine? One that neither wears out, requires servicing nor needs lubricating? It doesn't exist. And it wouldn't exist even if the maths behind it was absolutely perfect, let alone relatively perfect - whatever that means! - Perfect/not perfect, no exists relatively [/yoda]

Entropy and the unpredictable nature of reality have a way of fucking up any machine. That doesn't make the maths wrong.

Which is why I made sure to add "theoretically" to the beginning of the phrase.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

[...] Theoretically, machines (designed correctly) are perfect, because the mathematics involved in creating and operating them are relatively perfect...

I feel you need some theory of perfection in order to support this article. Is not the mathematics involved in a game of football also perfect? Is not imperfect mathematics just wrong mathematics or incorrectly conceived and/or processed mathematics? How perfect is relatively perfect? As you suggest, a poorly conceived machine is 'perfect' if it matched the designers conceptions and expectations, and regardless of its ability to perform or fulfil the task it was designed for efficiently - or perfectly. This is not within the sphere of mathematics.

FS,

Show me a perfect machine? One that neither wears out, requires servicing nor needs lubricating? It doesn't exist. And it wouldn't exist even if the maths behind it was absolutely perfect, let alone relatively perfect - whatever that means! - Perfect/not perfect, no exists relatively [/yoda]

Entropy and the unpredictable nature of reality have a way of fucking up any machine. That doesn't make the maths wrong.

Which is why I made sure to add "theoretically" to the beginning of the phrase.

I would still dispute this (because I am an argumentative sod!)

A machine (even a theoretical one) could never be perfect in any theoretical world sufficiently closely approximating our own. Only if that theoretical world were simplified to the point of having no entropy (read friction, wind resistance, fluctuations in humidity, temperature, etc.) could such a machine be conceived. And any such theoretical world would not mirror our own sufficiently for it to be a worthwhile mathematical model to predict the behaviour of real machines! Catch 22.

[Chinaski]

Ownage, but I think it's still somewhat beside the point. I was arguing that the theoretical perfection of mathematics influences the perceived perfection of machines. Admittedly, machines aren't perfect, and I should have included that, but my point wasn't to prove that they are.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Ownage, but I think it's still somewhat beside the point. I was arguing that the theoretical perfection of mathematics influences the perceived perfection of machines. Admittedly, machines aren't perfect, and I should have included that, but my point wasn't to prove that they are.

So what are you trying to prove? That there is some kind of Platonic form of the machine - an ideal that is the model upon which all real-world, inadequate, failing machines are based? If so, I think that you may have a point, as simplified mathematical models are used in the design of machines.

But again, these idealised forms only exist in an hypothetical, idealised universe and can have no existence outside of that universe - in fact, that universe is simply the inadequate, theoretical world that I postulated in my last post. Any truly useful mathematical design tools would perforce also include mathematical models for the effects of wear and tear, friction, etc. and would be expected to predict the working life of the machine to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Hence, only the first draft model of the machine would be 'perfect', before all of the really useful modeling was done.

[Chinaski]

My point was pointing out the reasons for the uneven emphasis in school curriculums.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

My point was pointing out the reasons for the uneven emphasis in school curriculums.

The emphasis is not uneven in my onion. In fact, maths is too often taught as a single, separate, isolated, esoteric subject rather than as the important real-world tool that it actually is. There needs to be more maths in schools, not less, and more integration of maths into other subjects. [/hobby horse]

[Chinaski]

My point was pointing out the reasons for the uneven emphasis in school curriculums.

The emphasis is not uneven in my onion. In fact, maths is too often taught as a single, separate, isolated, esoteric subject rather than as the important real-world tool that it actually is. There needs to be more maths in schools, not less, and more integration of maths into other subjects. [/hobby horse]

But you're a math teacher, so you're biased, Meh, I haven't had enough experience with various schools, so I can't really say, but personally I find math to be a much less enriching or growth-provoking area of thought than say literature or epistemology.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

My point was pointing out the reasons for the uneven emphasis in school curriculums.

The emphasis is not uneven in my onion. In fact, maths is too often taught as a single, separate, isolated, esoteric subject rather than as the important real-world tool that it actually is. There needs to be more maths in schools, not less, and more integration of maths into other subjects. [/hobby horse]

But you're a math teacher, so you're biased, Meh, I haven't had enough experience with various schools, so I can't really say, but personally I find math to be a much less enriching or growth-provoking area of thought than say literature or epistemology.

I am trained as a maths teacher. But I have spent my life doing so much else. Including reading a ton of literature and philosophy. Maths is not better but it is unique. No other subject has the purity and absolute truth of maths (except perhaps theology - so perhaps I should have said, "no other subject that isn't all lies and dissemination has the purity and absolute truth of maths.")

[Chinaski]

My point was pointing out the reasons for the uneven emphasis in school curriculums.

The emphasis is not uneven in my onion. In fact, maths is too often taught as a single, separate, isolated, esoteric subject rather than as the important real-world tool that it actually is. There needs to be more maths in schools, not less, and more integration of maths into other subjects. [/hobby horse]

But you're a math teacher, so you're biased, Meh, I haven't had enough experience with various schools, so I can't really say, but personally I find math to be a much less enriching or growth-provoking area of thought than say literature or epistemology.

I am trained as a maths teacher. But I have spent my life doing so much else. Including reading a ton of literature and philosophy. Maths is not better but it is unique. No other subject has the purity and absolute truth of maths (except perhaps theology - so perhaps I should have said, "no other subject that isn't all lies and dissemination has the purity and absolute truth of maths.")

But it's exactly that purity that I sometimes feel detracts from the intrinsic value of mathematics. It's something like "If there isn't room for interpretation and diverse solutions, I can't get as much out of it." Of course, this is merely a subjective musing.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

[Jason]

I'm sure I've related the story of how I engaged in an in depth conversation with a Chapters(big book store with Starbucks inside) manager about how Maths is the universal language while sooooo fucking high before.