On the Underlying Nature behind Languages and Maths
2005.05.31 21:26

Mathematics is not just another language

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
On the Underlying Nature behind Languages and Maths Preferences Top 4 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 4 comments 0: 4 comments 1: 4 comments 2: 2 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I know that this sounds funny...(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.06.01 18:49 (#12692206) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
but I have to say that I find the original [slashdot.org] easier to understand!
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 is 'superior' to the other; they fulfill different rôles.
I missed it last time around, but drooling-dog's response to me appears to have missed my point. The system that is intuited to have the right properties is not just the axioms, but also the deductive flow. His comment is therefore implicit in my own.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org]
Re:I know that this sounds funny...(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.06.03 1:07 (#12705397) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
I know that this sounds funny...No, not at all.
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 degree that one can reasonable describable, explicable. In other words, the world now we exist contains many unreasonable indescribable inexpicable things -all existing beyond the realm of verbal comprehensions. Let me give you one simple example. We use languages in which some reasonable meanings are conveyable, so almost all ordinary languages can convey some reasonable meanings. See my attempt in 'The Eve', I have been trying to postulate that there are languages to convey things unreasonable/indiscribable/ inexplicable, those are rather ruling languages in the underlying nature behind reasonable verbal expressions - simply speaking, similar to the languages spoken in our unconsciousness, or dream at night. Languages we use to convey any reasonable meanings are just 'a tip of icebergs', where tens of thousands of tacit, non-verbal, non-linguistic elements exist.
As the extention of my theory to maths, I said only Eucrid geometry happens to coincide just simple reality now we face, there must be tens of thousands of non- mathemetical elements behind Eucrid geometry, for geometiries other than Eucrid's, there other postulations are necessary, so I know there are non-Eucrid geometies.
Newtonian physics is only valid in particular flow of time in particular speed of moving. Once these postulation- particular time and speed his physics has to be replaced by Einstein's relativism, where time and place are determined only in a variable elements - the more one moves faster, the slower the time the one has, their time and space are determined relatively.
I must say ordinary languages, Eucrid geomety, Newtonian physics are not enough to convey any reasonable meanings any more. Since our comprehension has been enhancing, the role of languages/mathematica/ physics has to enhance accrdingly.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Mathematical Models(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.06.03 6:13 (#12708268) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
As the extention of my theory to maths, I said only Eucrid geometry happens to coincide just simple reality now we face, there must be tens of thousands of non- mathemetical elements behind Eucrid geometry, for geometiries other than Eucrid's, there other postulations are necessary, so I know there are non-Eucrid geometies. 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 attempt to unify Quantum Mechanics with Einsteinian physics. All sorts of 'kludges' are used to attempt to form a marriage, but it doesn't quite go.
Whilst I still hold that there exists an absolute reality, we don't really appear to have found it yet. Maths have not (yet) yielded us a perfect model, but it can be used to help form useful analogies.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org] [ Parent ]
Re:Mathematical Models(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.06.05 2:55 (#12724404) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Einsteinian geometry is hard.
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 being a competent mathematician.
Maths have not (yet) yielded us a perfect model, but it can be used to help form useful analogies.
Math can describe droughts or analogies of an absolute reality, but never be the same, since Math keeps on being a poor tool, as opposed to the underlying nature behind.
Visit my latest JE [slashdot.org].--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters