Journal mercedo's Journal: On the Underlying Nature behind Languages and Maths 4
For him, mathematics is more than languages, mathematics is what is hidden under the verbal expressions and more close to what he thinks truth, for him mathematical truth is much closer to or almost the same as what he thinks it's true, by and large mathematical truth is more accurate than the expressions languages can do. That's why he thinks
Maths has a language, but it is a lot more, or a lot less, depending upon which way one want to look at it.
As a mathematician, he might tend to think maths is a lot more than languages I believe. Or for a person who can handle maths much more than languages, maths is a lot more than languages. Me? I can be saying like a language has a maths, but it is much more or less, depending on...For me languages and maths play a similar role on how to shed light on 'truth' -underlying nature of things. Just math is based on figure and languages are based on words. Both are just a means to get closer to the nature of things. But for him math has a lot more than other means. Naturally. So for him
Maths is the art of finding what must be true within a system often expressed in liguistic form, but whereas a language is a local (though often approximately copied) utilitarian structure that binds meaning together; mathematics is a one-to-one mapping of a structure that is found to be the same by all practicing mathematicians (which is pretty close to objectivity if you ask me) onto an agreed linguistic form.
His comments of different discription on maths and languages are very insightful.
When mathematicians use different symbols and reasoning, they still find the same things to be true as they find when they use the original set. That is: the linguistic element is arbitary to a high degree; it is not the important thing; rather: the underlying structure that exists before it is expressed symbolically is what is important.
Here he emphasised and describved the superiority of maths as to how to get to the same conclusion -truth or underlying nature of things- objectivity as opposed to the cases one used languages.
If you believe maths to be, rather than having a language, you will not be a very competent mathematician, for you will be inclined to engage in symbolic manipulation as an arbitary and bizzare exercise without intuiting the underlying nature of mathematical truth.
For him I guess laguages are less important than maths as to how to get to the underlying nature of things-since mathematical truth is as good as truth, for him. And of course it is not wrong.
When I say that maths can be viewed as being less than a language, I mean that the above-mentioned structure is highly restrictive.
It must be.
The potential of using mathematics for conveying "human meaning" (to do with day-to-day judgement and decision-making) is extremely poor.
Sure.
Insofar as mathematics is used to help in everyday matters, it does so by analysing a system that is intuited to have the right properties. Normal language and reasoning is then used to build an analogy [slashdot.org] with the phenomenon under consideration, but common language and understanding build the bridge, not mathematics.
For him maths is superior to just using normal languages as the way we get closer to the truth. I am not particulary objective to his comments since everyone knows maths can reach to the rim of the universe. But let me add some more. As long as maths is established in Eucrid geometry, its mathematical truth is to the end along with the underlying nature-truth-reality. But just one posited some geometries other than Eucrid, the possibilities of maths enhance to the underlying nature of other than realities. Remember the reality now we face is just one alternative from tens of thousands of other alternative realities. Same thing I can say as to languages, Languages reflect reality well to some extent in a degree as we can accept. But apart from languages we use, there are tens of thousands a lot more of 'indescribables' , that by far beyond the expression languages can reach. We use languages as good as the underlying nature of linguistic truth, but the true figure of languages can reflect many other realities as well as other than realities. Remember languages and maths now we use can reflect only one poor reality. True figure lies behind the scenes.
I know that this sounds funny... (Score:2)
I'm not sure that you've got my motives right; really, I am motivated to correct a common misconception of mathematics as a language, since such a conception is harmful both to mathematics, and to language: accordingly, we weaken our mathematical competence by weakening our understanding of the nature of truth, and we weaken our linguistic skill by making it hard and brittle; trying to render it 'more logical'.
I wouldn't claim that one
Re:I know that this sounds funny... (Score:1)
but I have to say that I find the original easier to understand!
I am not particulary object to your understanding on relationship of maths amd languages, you can tell about it more than the rest of two commentators, and I respect your deep comprehension on these matters. The question I raised was however, the range some reasonable means whatever one might use - it might be a mathematical or linguistic approach, any reasonable approach cannot reach to the
Mathematical Models (Score:2)
Newtonian physics uses Euclidian geometry, and most Engineers do in everyday use. Einsteinian geometry is hard.
However, all of this physics has been superceded, so that we now at
Re:Mathematical Models (Score:1)
Indeed. It must be by far harder than Euclid's, Euclid geometry is only applied to a fixed state in a fixed time, among whole the true figures of the universe, it rather belongs to the exception of exceptions.
Whilst I still hold that there exists an absolute reality, we don't really appear to have found it yet.
What you discribed as an absolute reality is very close to the notion I raised as an underlying nature of things, as long as we keep an eye for it, we could keep on