CTK Exchange Front Page Movie shortcuts Personal info Awards Reciprocal links Terms of use Privacy Policy Cut The Knot! MSET99 Talk Games & Puzzles Arithmetic/Algebra Geometry Probability Eye Opener Analog Gadgets Inventor's Paradox Did you know?... Proofs Math as Language Things Impossible My Logo Math Poll Other Math sit's Guest book News sit's Recommend this site
|Store|

CTK Exchange

 Subject: ""Math...the only deductive science"" Previous Topic | Next Topic
 Conferences The CTK Exchange Guest book Topic #394 Printer-friendly copy     Email this topic to a friend Reading Topic #394
Bob S
Member since Nov-13-04
Nov-13-04, 08:48 PM (EST)

""Math...the only deductive science""

 (source, Alexander Bogomolny’s Manifesto)I respectfully disagree. Logic is the only deductive science. Mathematics is the result of logical reasoning, not the use of logic reasoning. Logical reasoning existed before a mathematical formula could be established. A mathematician is not necessarily a logistician, however, a logistician must be a mathematician lest their logic be flawed or at least limited. And, of what value is a logistician who confines their logic to dilemmas other than math? To clarify, there are three forms of logic, 1.) simple logic, 2.) applied logic and 3.) pure logic. Simple logic is the observation of two or more events and drawing a conclusion. Applied logic is allowing for debate as the reality of the conclusion of simple logic. Pure logic ends all debate. As an example I have provided some simple logic contained within this web site as follows;"In how many ways do nothing? (emphasis added question, may I assume "one can" is transposed, can one?)A mathematical answer to this is just one: 0!=1. Reasoning, There is just one way to do nothing so that 0!=1. However, the result of this activity is nothing or, in math parlance, 0." (source, Alexander Permutations Page)The solution 0!=1 is simple logic. Using applied logic the answer is 0! = infinity. Pure logic dictates the answer is 0!=0.My question for Alexander is this; if I provide you with an acceptable and approved solution to my statement will you make me a chartered member. And just to sweeten the pot using pure logic I will give you two mathematical equations; a.) nothing = everything and b.) everything = nothing. In a.) what does = equal, and in b.) what does = equal?thebobguy

Subject     Author     Message Date     ID
"Math...the only deductive science" Bob S Nov-13-04 TOP
RE: deductive alexb Nov-15-04 1
RE: deductive rewboss Nov-15-04 2
RE: deductive alexb Nov-15-04 3
RE: Math... Bob S Nov-15-04 4
RE: Math... alexb Nov-15-04 5
RE: Point taken Bob S Nov-15-04 6
RE: Point taken alexb Nov-19-04 7
RE: Point taken, maybe not. Bob S Nov-20-04 8

 Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
alexb
Charter Member
1375 posts
Nov-15-04, 09:23 AM (EST)

1. "RE: deductive"
In response to message #0

 >Logic is the only deductive science. There is probably more disagreement of what the science of logic is than about what mathematics is. As you indicate later on, there several logics out there. It's entirely unclear which, if any, of them is deductive.>Mathematics is the result of logical reasoning, not >the use of logic reasoning. Mathematics is mostly a result of inspiration.>Logical reasoning existed before >a mathematical formula could be established. Is mathematics about formulas? (Or should I write "formulae"?)>A mathematician >is not necessarily a logistician, however, a logistician >must be a mathematician Well, there are too many examples to the contrary.>lest their logic be flawed or at >least limited. And, of what value is a logistician who >confines their logic to dilemmas other than math? Of what value are values in this context?>To >clarify, there are three forms of logic, 1.) simple logic, >2.) applied logic and 3.) pure logic. Simple logic is the >observation of two or more events and drawing a conclusion. >Applied logic is allowing for debate as the reality of the >conclusion of simple logic. Pure logic ends all debate. Are the latter two allow for drawing conclusions, or just for an increasing measure of debate?>As >an example I have provided some simple logic contained >within this web site as follows; >>"In how many ways do nothing? (emphasis added >question, may I assume "one can" is transposed, can one?)Thank you for that. Sincerely ...>The solution 0!=1 is simple logic. Using applied logic the >answer is 0! = infinity. This is certainly debatable.Pure logic dictates the answer is >0!=0. Even more debatable.>My question for Alexander is this; if I provide you with an >acceptable and approved solution to my statement Some of my remarks in the foregoing have been posted in the form of questions. Do not misread that: I do not expect the answers.>will you >make me a chartered member. Logically: what good may come out of that?>And just to sweeten the pot >using pure logic I will give you two mathematical equations; >a.) nothing = everything and b.) everything = nothing. In >a.) what does = equal, and in b.) what does = equal? You can't spoil what does not make sense.Best,Alexander Bogomolny

rewboss
guest
Nov-15-04, 01:44 PM (EST)

2. "RE: deductive"
In response to message #1

 >Is mathematics about formulas? (Or should I write >"formulae"?) According to Webster's, you may write either. Isn't that generous of Webster?

alexb
Charter Member
1375 posts
Nov-15-04, 01:50 PM (EST)

3. "RE: deductive"
In response to message #2

 >According to Webster's, you may write either. Isn't that >generous of Webster? I know. This was arguably an obscure allusion to the temporal factor in the immediately preceding sentence:>Logical reasoning existed before >a mathematical formula could be established.

Bob S
Member since Nov-13-04
Nov-15-04, 09:59 PM (EST)

4. "RE: Math..."
In response to message #0

 thebobguyGood job Bob, your post has just given Alex another example of "just one way to do nothing". And I do not blame him for not wanting you to answer him. Nothing = everything, just where do you come up with that kind of drivel.

alexb
Charter Member
1375 posts
Nov-15-04, 10:22 PM (EST)

5. "RE: Math..."
In response to message #4

 >Good job Bob, your post has just given Alex another example >of "just one way to do nothing". Well, writing even a little bit is not quite "doing nothing". Your post has rather prompted him to say that when it comes to choosing between doing something you like and doing something he likes he would prefer the latter. This is quite an unfortunate circumstance that the two choice are significantly distinct.>And I do not blame him for >not wanting you to answer him. No sensible person would.

Bob S
Member since Nov-13-04
Nov-15-04, 09:31 AM (EST)

6. "RE: Point taken"
In response to message #5

 thebobguy.

alexb
Charter Member
1375 posts
Nov-19-04, 11:27 AM (EST)

7. "RE: Point taken"
In response to message #6

 Which was what, I mean the "Point taken"?

Bob S
Member since Nov-13-04
Nov-20-04, 10:39 AM (EST)

8. "RE: Point taken, maybe not."
In response to message #7

 >Which was what, I mean the "Point taken"? When was which what?What is which now?What is what now?Why is which not what now?How many points were there?Were there no points?If there were no points then what was the point?May I keep the point?Who cares what the point is.I care what the point is.Nobody cares what the point is.Everybody cares what the point is.Who will do something?But should who do nothing?Or should who not do anything?If who does not do anything should anybody do anything?Or should nobody do nothing?If nobody does nothing then who will do something?Somebody should.Everybody can.Nobody will.I could.But what is the point?Tune in next week.Who can.Everybody should.Nobody will.thebobguy

 Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
 Select another forum or conference Lobby The CTK Exchange (Conference)   |--Early math (Public)   |--Middle school (Public)   |--High school (Public)   |--College math (Public)   |--This and that (Public)   |--Guest book (Public)

You may be curious to visit the old Guest book.