In article ,
"Jem" wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chan-Ho Suh wrote:
In article , Jem
wrote:

Mathematics (i.e. logical symbol manipulation)
can't provide that direction.

Your arguments may carry more weight if you had a correct idea of what
mathematics is. But clearly you don't.

Or he's got a big chip on his shoulder. Dialogue with him will
teach lurkers a bit about analytical thinking. If it prevents
one person from walking into his/her math class with an attitude
that the class is a waste of time, the bits will be worth it.

What's needed is some analytical reading. There's no negative implication
at all in anything I said.

Oh, you're one those. You are the one who used the adjective
"aimless" which means without direction or purpose. You are
claiming that math has no purpose; I have you one example to
counter that assertion.

.. The fact that a hammer can't find the nail on
its own doesn't mean its a useless implement.

Here's a box of Kleenix, kid.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article ,
"Jem" wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Anon" wrote:

wrote in message
news
In article k8pkd.5$IZ2.1@lakeread06, "Jem" wrote:
snip

Regarding my comment - it shouldn't have been too difficult to
recognize
that people are metaphors for their professions, and the point of
the
analogy (silly or not) is that standing alone, mathematics is an
aimless
avocation, which gets its direction for the most part from science.

Math, by itself, may be aimless. However, it teaches people
how to think well. I don't call anything, that teaches people
how to use analytical thinking, aimless.

Aimless (lacking direction) isn't the same as pointless (of no value).

Any new thing is going to have the attribute of lacking direction.
It's only in hindsight that one can determine there was direction.

If you start labeling a discipline as aimless, the conclusion will
be to not teach it. You might try to view the relationships between
science and math as symbiotic rather than parasitic. Your comment
implies that math is parasitic to science. Neither would have
made published advances without the other.

I think you're still reading more into the word "aimless" than is
warranted
by its definition,

I am using the definition of aimless; you are ignoring half of the
definition of aimless. I am concluding that you are doing this
because you have an attitude problem and are trying to prove
you're right.

..and I don't want to get into a semantical argument.

You're going to have a semantical argument when you start
throwing words around that denote a negative connotation
but try to make the claim that you're not trying to denigrate
studying math.

.. The
fact is you can get a Shakespearean sonnet by setting enough monkeys at
typewriters for a long enough time,

No, you can't.

..but to produce one efficiently requires
having some idea of what it is you want to achieve (i.e. direction).
Mathematics (i.e. logical symbol manipulation) can't provide that
direction.


Since when is math a logic symbol manipulation? Computer programming
may be this, but math sure as hell isn't.

It sounds like you've only taken high school algebra and skipped
the plane geometry course.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

wrote in message ...
In article ,
Chan-Ho Suh wrote:
In article , Jem
wrote:

Mathematics (i.e. logical symbol manipulation)
can't provide that direction.

Your arguments may carry more weight if you had a correct idea of what
mathematics is. But clearly you don't.

Or he's got a big chip on his shoulder. Dialogue with him will
teach lurkers a bit about analytical thinking. If it prevents
one person from walking into his/her math class with an attitude
that the class is a waste of time, the bits will be worth it.

What's needed is some analytical reading. There's no negative implication
at all in anything I said. The fact that a hammer can't find the nail on
its own doesn't mean its a useless implement.

wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Jem" wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chan-Ho Suh wrote:
In article , Jem
wrote:

Mathematics (i.e. logical symbol manipulation)
can't provide that direction.

Your arguments may carry more weight if you had a correct idea of what
mathematics is. But clearly you don't.

Or he's got a big chip on his shoulder. Dialogue with him will
teach lurkers a bit about analytical thinking. If it prevents
one person from walking into his/her math class with an attitude
that the class is a waste of time, the bits will be worth it.

What's needed is some analytical reading. There's no negative
implication
at all in anything I said.

Oh, you're one those. You are the one who used the adjective
"aimless" which means without direction or purpose. You are
claiming that math has no purpose; I have you one example to
counter that assertion.

.. The fact that a hammer can't find the nail on
its own doesn't mean its a useless implement.

Here's a box of Kleenix, kid.

/BAH

I told you before I didn't want to get into a semantical argument over this,
and I think I made it clear what I meant by the word "aimless", both from
the context of my original remark, and from my subsequent clarifications.
Keep the Kleenex, kid.

Eugene Shubert:
"jem" wrote in message news:iU3kd.6278$C%4.3904@lakeread04...

That's kind of like asserting the superiority of automobile mechanics
over those who design and build the cars.

Most scientists need to understand math. The division that I'm
suggesting is more like the competent verses the incompetent.

Who do you think understands logic best, mathematicians or physicists?

That is a rather stupid question (and answer, since I'm sure you
intended it to be rhetorical). He who understands logic best is he who
understands logic best. I have a question that you should be able to
answer by pure logic. Do you think it's possible to drill a square hole
with a square bit?


Tom Roberts is a physicist who denies the logic of my opening post.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/v...hp?p=3437#3437
http://groups.google.com/groups?&sel...s13.hou.wt.net

Will Twentyman and Gene Ward Smith sound like extraordinarily
competent mathematicians. They agree with me.

So far, you have validated my hypothesis that you define competent
by the ease with which you can misconstrue the comments of someone
into agreement where there is none.

[...]
There really isn't any contest about who is right in elementary logic.
In this instance, mathematicians are preeminent over physicists.

Only if you are talking about the logic needed to be a mathematician.
Pn the other hand, if one is designing an experiment to measure parity
violation in nuclear scattering, only an idiot would consider the
mathematics department as the most obvious place to find the most
logical opinions on how to perform the experiment.

In article ,
"Jem" wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jem" wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chan-Ho Suh wrote:
In article , Jem
wrote:

Mathematics (i.e. logical symbol manipulation)
can't provide that direction.

Your arguments may carry more weight if you had a correct idea of
what
mathematics is. But clearly you don't.

Or he's got a big chip on his shoulder. Dialogue with him will
teach lurkers a bit about analytical thinking. If it prevents
one person from walking into his/her math class with an attitude
that the class is a waste of time, the bits will be worth it.

What's needed is some analytical reading. There's no negative
implication
at all in anything I said.

Oh, you're one those. You are the one who used the adjective
"aimless" which means without direction or purpose. You are
claiming that math has no purpose; I have you one example to
counter that assertion.

.. The fact that a hammer can't find the nail on
its own doesn't mean its a useless implement.

Here's a box of Kleenix, kid.

/BAH

I told you before I didn't want to get into a semantical argument over
this,
and I think I made it clear what I meant by the word "aimless", both from
the context of my original remark, and from my subsequent clarifications.

Yes, you did make it clear. You see no use for learning math and
are trying to spread your new religion.

Keep the Kleenex, kid.

OK. There may be other snot-nosed kids who will use it and
learn.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

wrote:
In article ,
"Jem" wrote:

wrote in message

...

In article ,
"Jem" wrote:

wrote in message

...

In article ,
Chan-Ho Suh wrote:

In article , Jem
wrote:


Mathematics (i.e. logical symbol manipulation)
can't provide that direction.

Your arguments may carry more weight if you had a correct idea of

what

mathematics is. But clearly you don't.

Or he's got a big chip on his shoulder. Dialogue with him will
teach lurkers a bit about analytical thinking. If it prevents
one person from walking into his/her math class with an attitude
that the class is a waste of time, the bits will be worth it.

What's needed is some analytical reading. There's no negative

implication

at all in anything I said.

Oh, you're one those. You are the one who used the adjective
"aimless" which means without direction or purpose. You are
claiming that math has no purpose; I have you one example to
counter that assertion.


.. The fact that a hammer can't find the nail on
its own doesn't mean its a useless implement.

Here's a box of Kleenix, kid.

/BAH

I told you before I didn't want to get into a semantical argument over

this,

and I think I made it clear what I meant by the word "aimless", both from
the context of my original remark, and from my subsequent clarifications.

Yes, you did make it clear. You see no use for learning math and
are trying to spread your new religion.

That comment borders on delusional BAH. You really need to work on your
comprehension skills.


Keep the Kleenex, kid.


OK. There may be other snot-nosed kids who will use it and
learn.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Eugene Shubert wrote
http://groups.google.com/groups?&sel...g. google.com

Will Twentyman and Gene Ward Smith sound like extraordinarily
competent mathematicians. They agree with me.

So far, you have validated my hypothesis that you define competent
by the ease with which you can misconstrue the comments of someone
into agreement where there is none.

This is your condemnation:

You are confident that Gene Ward Smith and Will Twentyman failed to
answer my opening question. And you believe that you're handling the
evidence honestly.

"Gene Ward Smith" wrote
http://groups.google.com/groups?&sel...g. google.com
"Eugene Shubert" wrote
http://groups.google.com/groups?&sel...s13.hou.wt.net

Suppose you begin a derivation by assigning a clear and
undisputed physical meaning to real parameters x, x', T, T',
and a real constant u. From that reasonable starting point,
I claim it's legitimate to pick a real number 1/c and then
define a new quantity v by the equation u=v/sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2).
The point is to then write everything in the ensuing
derivation in terms of v and not u. I also believe it's
legitimate to define, without any justification whatsoever,
the function gamma(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).

There is no requirement to give a physical meaning to any of
the above, .... You've defined u as a function of v, for real
v with |v| c. You can certainly do that if you choose, ...

You are also free to define the function gamma, ... You might
also consider the transformation r = c arctanh(v/c), "rapidity",
which has nice additivity properties.

None of this is physics as yet;
______________

Will Twentyman wrote
http://groups.google.com/groups?&sel...feed.slurp.net

Eugene Shubert wrote:

I have a trivial question concerning mathematics and logic and I
would like to receive a resounding answer that is both unanimous
and clear from practicing mathematicians and logicians. The cross-
posting is for the benefit of the physicists who have read my
paper http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
and are stumbling over its elementary logic. Here's the logic that
the physicists find troubling. Suppose you begin a derivation by
assigning a clear and undisputed physical meaning to real
parameters x, x', T, T', and a real constant u. From that
reasonable starting point, I claim it's legitimate to pick a real
number 1/c and then define a new quantity v by the equation
u=v/sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2). The point is to then write everything
in the ensuing derivation in terms of v and not u. I also believe
it's legitimate to define, without any justification whatsoever,
the function gamma(v) = 1/sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2).

It appears that you are making a definition. That's perfectly ok.
Next you have to defend any interpretations you may put on
that definition. I suspect they have an objections someplace
else.
______________


As you say, you're absolutely certain that you're unaware of any
positive confirmations in my favor in the expert testimony of Gene
Ward Smith and Will Twentyman. I suppose that means that you
also don't recognize any difference between purely positive
confirmations if contrasted to the directly opposite, negative
denials by Tom Roberts.

Look again. Tom Roberts directly contradicts the answers given
by Gene Ward Smith and Will Twentyman in his wrangling with
me. Here is the pertinent exchange:

The quality of a derivation of the equations of SR is usually judged
by:
1. the simplicity and physical believability of its assumptions, or
lack thereof.

and:
2. the generality of those assumptions.

Your derivation is seriously lacking in both of those aspects:
1. On page 2 your assumptions for \mu and \gamma are completely
unsupported,

My official derivation begins on page 4. The assumption that you refer
to (page 2), the principle called change of variables, also called
substitution, is one of the clearest and most useful mathematical
ideas in high school algebra and baby calculus. What's your dispute
with intuitively simple fundamentals? What support do I need and
why is it an unwarranted physical assumption if I label the function
1/sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2) with the Greek letter gamma?

and are not obvious at all -- these are QUITE unusual assumptions,
to say the least; why should anybody believe them?

Why should anyone believe in the substitution v/c = tanh(theta),
which transforms the usual Lorentz transformation to its
hyperbolic form?

Because that is not an ASSUMPTION, it is a CONCLUSION.

There are plenty of derivations of the Lorentz Transformation
equations that don't define theta. Take Einstein's tortured derivation
for example (Dover, The Principle of Relativity). And try to find a
mathematician who isn't going to laugh at you. If theta isn't defined
anywhere in a derivation, then you are perfectly free to let theta be
anything that pleases you at any step in a derivation. And even if a
simple substitution/transformation doesn't please some physicists, it
still has every mathematical right to exist.

There is no physical assumption in the mathematical substitution
u=v/sqrt(1 -v^2/c^2).

http://www.everythingimportant.org/v...hp?p=3437#3437
http://www.everythingimportant.org/v...hp?p=3441#3441

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

jem writes:

If you look to the foundations of modern mathematics you find some
undefined terms (symbols), and some assumed relationships between those
terms (axioms) from which (using logical inference) all of Mathematics
arises. That's why it's just symbol pushing, and that's why it's
directionless (better word?) - it has absolutely no meaning.

How do you arrive at this bizarre conclusion?

Reposted - original lost by ISP

wrote:

In article ,
"Jem" wrote:

wrote in message

...

In article ,
"Anon" wrote:

wrote in message

news
In article k8pkd.5$IZ2.1@lakeread06, "Jem" wrote:
snip

Regarding my comment - it shouldn't have been too difficult to

recognize

that people are metaphors for their professions, and the point of

the

analogy (silly or not) is that standing alone, mathematics is an

aimless

avocation, which gets its direction for the most part from science.

Math, by itself, may be aimless. However, it teaches people
how to think well. I don't call anything, that teaches people
how to use analytical thinking, aimless.

Aimless (lacking direction) isn't the same as pointless (of no value).

Any new thing is going to have the attribute of lacking direction.
It's only in hindsight that one can determine there was direction.

If you start labeling a discipline as aimless, the conclusion will
be to not teach it. You might try to view the relationships between
science and math as symbiotic rather than parasitic. Your comment
implies that math is parasitic to science. Neither would have
made published advances without the other.

I think you're still reading more into the word "aimless" than is

warranted

by its definition,


I am using the definition of aimless; you are ignoring half of the
definition of aimless. I am concluding that you are doing this
because you have an attitude problem and are trying to prove
you're right.


..and I don't want to get into a semantical argument.


You're going to have a semantical argument when you start
throwing words around that denote a negative connotation
but try to make the claim that you're not trying to denigrate
studying math.

Look, the English language unfortunately doesn't make it easy to be
precise and unambiguous, and in a newsgroup post who's going to parse
every word to try to ensure that nobody misinterprets what's being said.
All I can do is explain what I meant if someone takes exception to it.
You took exception. I explained. The horse is dead.


.. The
fact is you can get a Shakespearean sonnet by setting enough monkeys at
typewriters for a long enough time,


No, you can't.

I know some smart monkeys.

..but to produce one efficiently requires
having some idea of what it is you want to achieve (i.e. direction).
Mathematics (i.e. logical symbol manipulation) can't provide that
direction.

Since when is math a logic symbol manipulation? Computer programming
may be this, but math sure as hell isn't.

It sounds like you've only taken high school algebra and skipped
the plane geometry course.

If you look to the foundations of modern mathematics you find some
undefined terms (symbols), and some assumed relationships between those
terms (axioms) from which (using logical inference) all of Mathematics
arises. That's why it's just symbol pushing, and that's why it's
directionless (better word?) - it has absolutely no meaning. The power
of mathematics is only realized once its terms and relationships have
been interpreted as real world concepts, and that's done outside of
mathematics.