 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not really. Most algorithms require understanding of the mathematical processes involved, and tend to break the problem down into ways that the computer can understand them better. |
Basically refuting your statement that writing algorithm is "Number crunching dressed up. "
|
|
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Mathematics has very rigorous standards of proof. |
Indeed it does. Proves by induction, elimination, etc. would all quality as proof.
The way I see it, maths is taking given assumptions, and saying if such is true, then this is also true, as per proving identies. Philosophy does the same, with ideas. If such an idea is true, then this also means that such another idea is true. However every philosophy student I have debated with has bent this a little in order to give their argument more credance, saying that since something is true, their argument must be, when that is not necessarily so. All the mathematicians I know do not do this however, because you would have to prove why that was the case, by a set means of proof, whereas in a debate, someone would have to show it to be false.
For example, you cannot use a method of proof to show that, since the universe exists, God must exist to have created it. Or to answer any of the questions like that. In the philosophical world, there aren't certainties. When you have a mathematical system, it has rules and properties, so proves can be made. You can prove that cot^2 = cos^2 over sin^2, given the assumptions of what sin and cos mean with regards to a triangle. Without those assumptions it cannot be proven. You can do the same, with assumptions, in philosophy. However you can never prove that those assumptions are true, without basing that on more assumptions. In maths, that doesn't matter, since maths is using that particular construct to solve problems. The system is a human construction, and only valid inside that construct. In philosophy there is not the same contruct. When trying to solve the ethical dilemmas, or far reach questions about our place in the universe, or anything like that, we don't know the assumptions.
Philosophy does have rigourous proof, proving that given one thing, another is true, just like maths. What it doesn't have, is a common set of assumptions to start with, and thus even if you prove that, given the assumptions, you can never prove the assumptions, thus nothing is ever actually proven.
When it comes to practical philosophy, of actions and morals, it becomes even less able to prove. My personal philosophical beliefs come from the assumption that happiness is good, as the core pillar. While I can show, that given that happiness is good, such and such an action is also probably good, I can never prove that, since I don't know all the results of that. Hence, even with a core assumption, it is unprovable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
The way I see it, maths is taking given assumptions, and saying if such is true, then this is also true, as per proving identies. Philosophy does the same, with ideas. If such an idea is true, then this also means that such another idea is true. However every philosophy student I have debated with has bent this a little in order to give their argument more credance, saying that since something is true, their argument must be, when that is not necessarily so. All the mathematicians I know do not do this however, because you would have to prove why that was the case, by a set means of proof, whereas in a debate, someone would have to show it to be false.
For example, you cannot use a method of proof to show that, since the universe exists, God must exist to have created it. Or to answer any of the questions like that. In the philosophical world, there aren't certainties. When you have a mathematical system, it has rules and properties, so proves can be made. You can prove that cot^2 = cos^2 over sin^2, given the assumptions of what sin and cos mean with regards to a triangle. Without those assumptions it cannot be proven. |
I'd say definitions, not assumptions. Without them, it's meaningless gibberish.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monolith94
Honestly, college level mathematics is a pure waste of my time. Cause I'm not going into engineering, or architecture, or comp sci, or anything technical related. As an English major, math is utterly superfluous. |
Yes, and as a math major, the study of literature would be utterly superfluous. Your point? Maths, in the sense of all people, has a point. It may not have a point for you in particular to study it, but there is a point for people to study it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What discussion is there? You have your assignments, and when you get them returned, then you go back to the lectures. |
I haven't had a course like that since first year.
quote:
And the number of research papers I did in science? None. They don't do papers. They have assignments instead. |
What "science" and how far? I've written many papers in computer science, in fact...research papers are one of the most critical parts of a scientific education.
If all your school has you doing is assignments, you went to an incredibly crap school.
quote:
My friend is a patent lawyer, so I guess patents are just a bunch of lies that should be abolished in favour of everything being public domain.  |
Have you looked at patents? Damn straight a huge chunk of them are lies -- especially those that require patent lawyers to defend. 
quote:
If you know so much about me, then what degree do I have, Asher? |
I don't proclaim to know everything about you, but I do remember you mentioning that in your thread about your construction job (that your degree didn't get you a job or a good job).
quote:
Right, and I suppose you would pay someone to write full time if he were better?
Don't make me laugh. |
I work closely with a team at work, all they do is write. The thing is, they know what they're doing -- they're computer science graduates.
There's one or two English majors on the team, and they've been relegated to grammar checking, since they have a very hard time getting things correct...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-09-2004 02:02
|