|
Maths
May 16, 2008 18:37:33 GMT
Post by Pete on May 16, 2008 18:37:33 GMT
... discovery is surely the 'bolt from the blue', where the mind (and imagination) allow us to make a connection that has not previously been considered. Surely that's inspiration, not discovery, Barry? ... The classic (although slightly disproven) leap of imagination that allowed the discovery (not invention) of the structure of DNA, or the 'snake with its tail in its mouth' story of benzene, and the leap of faith that allowed the discovery of 'the Indies' by sailing west, were what sprang to mind. The structures of DNA and benzene were there already, so they were indeed discovered. But the leaps of imagination that allowed someone to make those discoveries were inspiration, not discovery. In the last example, I suggest that what you had was a leap of faith, that the world is round, followed by the discovery that this was true. A very long and expensive experiment to prove a theory, if you like.
|
|
|
Maths
May 16, 2008 18:48:46 GMT
Post by Pete on May 16, 2008 18:48:46 GMT
Why do some people use 'math' and others use 'maths'? Also, I assume they are both abbreviations of 'mathematics', but is it a plural or merely a word that ends in 's'?
|
|
|
Maths
May 16, 2008 18:56:13 GMT
Post by Dr Mildr on May 16, 2008 18:56:13 GMT
I would consider maths to be English and math to be American. Clearly this is not a universal distinction.
|
|
|
Maths
May 16, 2008 19:13:09 GMT
Post by Sue M-V on May 16, 2008 19:13:09 GMT
Trouble is, my main domestic opponent (who unfortunately has a Masters in Difficult Maths) argues that even y=x2 has an objective truth (or probably she'd prefer 2+2=4, rather than a function), and it would still be true (and would therefore in some form exist) even if man hadn't realised it yet.
She says there is plenty of Maths still waiting to be discovered -- and it really is there, because some of it follows from existing Maths -- we just haven't got there yet. It's definitely there, though, so it must already exist. Incredibly, I find myself agreeing completely with this! Sue, is Maths a science? It is for me. My basic division between arts and sciences has a lot to do with how objective or subjective they are. Arts subjects often rely heavily on interpretation and sometimes even intuition, and although those things may play a part in sciences, the latter must also be objectively observable and able to be replicated irrespective of time and place. I don't know whether you follow what I mean; I'm not sure I do myself! In some way sciences are more essential than arts, at the same time as we crave arts more than sciences. This could be the subject of a week-long symposium! Sue
|
|
|
Maths
May 16, 2008 22:22:49 GMT
Post by Barry on May 16, 2008 22:22:49 GMT
As Dr M says, the main difference is English/American. The more logical one is the American one, as it is a true abbreviation (that is, the abbreviation stops where you leave off the word; in theory, it should have a period after it):
Math[ematics]. - math.
The English one is a contraction (and so, I suppose, should logically contain an apostrophe):
Math[ematic]s - math's
|
|
|
Maths
May 16, 2008 23:24:11 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on May 16, 2008 23:24:11 GMT
Incredibly, I find myself agreeing completely with this! Yes, that's the trouble. I find myself agreeing with her, even when she's arguing against me! She can also drink me under the table, which (because she's 26) I think is an unfair tactic. Anyway, good question. You can see why people can't agree.
|
|
|
Maths
May 17, 2008 13:29:26 GMT
Post by Sue M-V on May 17, 2008 13:29:26 GMT
The English one is a contraction (and so, I suppose, should logically contain an apostrophe):
Math[ematic]s - math's ... like photo's, you mean! Sue
|
|
|
Maths
May 17, 2008 16:23:40 GMT
Post by Barry on May 17, 2008 16:23:40 GMT
Ah, no, because you can have one photo (so that stands as it is as an abbreviation - and has become a word in itself, with no period, and needs to be pluralised as normal). You can't have one mathematic, though. (though, weirdly, the related arithmetic is correct in the singular) A better comparison is B'ham.
|
|
|
Maths
May 17, 2008 20:40:57 GMT
Post by Bertie on May 17, 2008 20:40:57 GMT
What is the difference between arithmetic and mathematics? Or is it a TS?
|
|
|
Maths
May 17, 2008 21:03:35 GMT
Post by Tone on May 17, 2008 21:03:35 GMT
Barry, > You can't have one mathematic, though.<
But you can have one mathematick! (If you are very old.)
Bertie, >What is the difference between arithmetic and mathematics? Or is it a TS?<
No, it isn't. You need math to handle a Smith Chart: arithmetic alone won't cut the mustard.
Interesting point in SOED (my bold):
math n.3 N. Amer. colloq. M19. [Abbrev.] = MATHEMATICS. Cf. In British English used in writing only, maths being used in speech.
Tone
|
|
|
Maths
May 17, 2008 22:31:02 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on May 17, 2008 22:31:02 GMT
Mathematics includes arithmetic, geometry, algebra, etc, etc.
|
|
|
Maths
May 17, 2008 23:42:53 GMT
Post by Barry on May 17, 2008 23:42:53 GMT
Yup, as Paul says, mathematics is the broader subject area; arithmetic is what Molesworth would probably call sums (as opposed to trig., algy, geom. etc.). It's the area of mathematics that deals with the actions of basic operands on numbers.
|
|
|
Maths
May 18, 2008 12:51:54 GMT
Post by Dave M on May 18, 2008 12:51:54 GMT
|
|
|
Maths
May 18, 2008 14:42:54 GMT
Post by Sue M-V on May 18, 2008 14:42:54 GMT
Dave, are you being deeply philosophical, or is my screen failing to display your message?
Sue
|
|
|
Maths
May 18, 2008 15:22:14 GMT
Post by Pete on May 18, 2008 15:22:14 GMT
Dave, are you being deeply philosophical, or is my screen failing to display your message? Sue Probably the former as mine doesn't show anything, either.
|
|