I agree with your comment; although I don't see how what you said is relevant to what I said. GP was claiming that Maths was a product of logic (product of a way of reasoning), in response I claimed that logic was a subset of maths (ie. maths is a way of reasoning, one that encompasses the way of reasoing GP claimed maths was a product of).

Continuing with your line of discussion. There is some discussion of alternate logic in quantum physics. Usually largely in the realm of science philosophy/interpretation, but the notion of 'the particle is here (or the cat is alive if you prefer)' can be thought of as neither completely true nor completely false in some interpretations -- ie. that the superposition represents neither your confidence in your measure or reality, nor the probable end result of some unknown event(s), but that the truth of the particle being at point a is at 2/3 of the way from false to true, and the truth of the particle being at point b is 1/3 of the way from being false to true.

There are other non-traditional logics (a simple one is a three valued true, false, unknown) which see application as well as less used (in science/engineering at least) paraconsistent logics which are often studied in philosophy.

If the injectors can handle both oil and water, and you have a pressure release valve in your hot oil reservoir, I see no reason why partial mixing would be a problem. You would get a build up of grease and such, but engines do that anyway.

Recognising, identifying and using patterns is mathematics. By collecting things which demonstrate the fibbonaci sequence together your Kenyan kid is doing mathematics even if he is not very good at formally structuring his thoughts using the conventions form academia.
Ambiguous communication (ie. communcation can mean more than one of the available things that aren't degenerate in the current circumstances) is merely bad communication.
Approximations, qualitative analysis and context dependant communication (one of the reasons you can't input into a CAS using traditional notation or just using the same LaTeX as you would for presentation) are common in mathematics. If you don't believe me, go study chaos for a few years. There are plenty of other examples (such as statistics given in the rather hard to follow anon post above).
You don't often see the exact words you mentioned, or communication that depends that heavily on intuition and state of the recipient because it is (usually) too ambiguous to be useful.
Again, if you ask anyone that practices the art, they will be more inclined to say that mathematics is the process of organising, identifying, structuring etc. patterns than the current set of conventions and results we have. Communicating a precise thought unambiguously is important for this; this is why we use the languages/notations/etc that we do.

Then what do you refer to the study of, and manipulation of logical systems including non-tradition (ie. meta-consistent logic). It is sometimes done by those who identify as philosophers, but I think you'll find that the majority of such work is done by people who identify as mathematicians and call it mathematics.
Math (according to anyone I know who has studied it deeply at least) is the thought process. The models and tools which are then applied to the real world are more often referred to as results

To my mind this belies a misunderstanding of what mathematics is.
It does not depend on any one representation, or encoding. It encompasses any (non-ambiguous) expression of rules and relationships between things (be they real, ideals based on reality, or entirely fictional mental entities), or non-ambiguous measurements, and more importantly, the process of generating, manipulating, and understanding said relationships.
I agree wholeheartedly that our current encoding/names/expressions/forms/system of categorizing such things is completely human and largely incidental, but you could probably grab any decent mathematician and put her in an environment with completely different conventions without her having much trouble.

Hi rikxik,
How do I do that? I'm not sure.

PS. Still coming to the orgy on friday?

Aliens use cheap noname chinese laptops?

That's why you have a multiplier based on the number of total infractions of any and all companies that are subsidiaries of the same companies, have had the same companies as subsidiaries,or share majority shareholders/board members. It could go something like this: 1e6*2^n dollars where n is the number of infractions.

By putting it into landfill you are still transferring ownership.

Assuming they are true, none of these things rebut gp's statement.

Humans are good at doing these things called generalising and abstraction.
We can abstract away from receiving buttsecks to 'things that bring pleasure to the individual' or even more abstract concepts like 'maximising my utility function'. It gets fuzzy and difficult when trying to compare dissimilar utility functions, but that's why we have all these laws and public forums for debate and such like.

Another approach would be to augment this with a bottom up approach (for those words they can't quite get, or if all the languages die). It's fairly easy to get anough mathematics accross to communicate a simple audio and/or video codec (anyone competent enough to build microscopes and semiconductors is going to get the basic logical operations and from there some kind of assembly isn't hard).
Then include a bunch of sesame street and other stuff aimed at kids. Suppliment it with picture dictionaries along with our current understanding of linguistics and how it applies to the languages we know.

So you're saying we should bring the fast food home and use it to destroy all the kids favourite toys then send them to their room with no dinner?

I don't get it.

I realise this, but what was the joke? Isn't humour usually based on some misrepresentation or exaggeration?