Congratulations, Jason, you seem to be learning something...
However:


Many/all of the teachers in here don't even suspect they've been bestowed with such a responsibility! The best you can do is avoid their "lectures" (i.e. posts), or they will ostracize you! period.

Your being , isn't a requirement for participating in "classes". period.
Participation is strictly voluntary -- if you don't like it, you're free to leave the "class"! But in no event can you set the rules of "teaching!!! (you can only raise your objections with the site moderators, if you feel you've been insulted!!!)


Your's is the attitude of all poor students:
* Hitler has killed all of the teachers who've failed him!

* Eistein -- through his theories -- has humiliated some of the teachers who've failed him...

* Thus, you have a choice! Select the most appropriate...
---> Though, until you're in a position of exercising your choice. you better play by the rules set by those "teachers"!!!
AND BE VERY POLITE ABOUT IT!!! -- SOME PEOPLE ARE DOING YOU A BIG FAVOR JUST BY TALKING TO YOU* * *

YOU VIOLATE THE RULES OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS BY TRYING TO IMPOSE YOU OWN SET OF RULES!!!

HEY, JASONPFEINSTEIN, JUST WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE

Welcome back, Jason, I am glad you started this thread.

The point of argumentation is to organize premises in such a way as to show that one set of premises much reach a particular conclusion. If and only if the premises are true. None of it has to be cynical or filled with inside attacks. That's when argumentation becomes fighting, or bickering, which is the part of arguing that can make it useless as Jason pointed out. Probably Jason started this thread for a good reason. Sometimes people on here just like to throw mud. Or they take things too personally. Here is a prime example of lashing out that can muck up the works. I once wrote in here something about how we were having such a fun discussion until someone started accusing people of not being sensitive to their feelings, while being insensitive themselves. I was joking around, Nobody wants to play anymore. And she answered Good, don't play then!

Premise: people prefer to argue in a constructive way
Premise: insults and accusations are not constructive
Conclusion: People are more likely to join an arguement that is not getting tangled up in negative emotions

mygeneratiobaby:
Sure thing, MGB, whatever makes you happy! (that's just a convenience tool for the unmentionables..)
I rarely resort to that shorthand style of communication, except of rare occasions... hahahahahahaha! It takes away the whole beauty of communication! LOL

LOL Perhaps, that's for the better...

science has nothing to do with belief. no credible physicist "believes" in the big bang. he considers it a theory that is still being tested. belief requires faith. religions exist on faith. i've faith in nothing, therefor believe nothing. to believe is to know. nothing is knowable absolutely other than what i experience. the op makes no sense.

Although not as frequent as other phenomena, but science is full of Paradoxes -- no logical explanation... (yet!)

... its called PARADOX!!!

I realize I’ve jumped in at the middle but I think if I begin with the following I might catch up.

JasonP wrote:


A bird can fly and in so doing defied all logic – until somewhat recently (in terms of humanity).
Yet we don’t need math to explain and understand how a bird can fly. Although we can apply mathematical expression to the phenomena.

Mathematics developed as measuring tool. Each number represented a specific set of something without ever having to describe the something being counted.

People often make the mistake of confusing Mathematics, as described above, with the way modern mathematical notation is applied to scientific research. The applied version of mathematics is actually a strict and formal language. The notation used (signs, letters, ideograms) in combination with numbers are both qualitative and quantitative. They represent descriptions of and predictions for very abstract ideas and concepts.

This language continues to evolve as new fields of science develop. These scientific fields often need new “descriptive” characters that can be applied to “purely mathematical” equations and previously used scientific notation in unique ways.

I know I’m being rudimentary with my explanation but, like you, I’m still at the beginner level. So I thought, maybe, another beginner could better explain why your thoughts regarding “MATH” are finding so much opposition.

Science actually deals very little with math and as Massage and Wux have tried to explain – math is not the logic which is used to back up the science you have been relating too, but rather it is the application of ‘equations’ in combination with descriptive features of (scientific languate) that is being used in support of the scientific research being done today.

I hope this helps – and I also hope that others more knowledgable than me will correct my errors so that I TOO might learn.

EDIT: I forgot one thing - look up some real scientific equations. If you know what the various signs, letter, and idiograms really mean you might gain a better perspective with my explanation. The end results of these 'equations' is not a number describing a set of something - it is actually representitive of an abstract concept.

I think this is the reason why this method cannot be equated with the same kind of absolutes we equated pure math to.

Does that make sense?

ya know it actuly does. although i disagree with math having a little part of science. ...wait, no i can accept that if we accept that it may be little but it is distinct and fundemental.
i was under the impression they were saying it had nothing to do with
logic.
ok, i have one question (honest intentions, no sarcasm)
how are we defining logic here?
Ill think about it and respond when im not hungover and i feel life is worth living again. (God bless GJ! )
thanks

ps i dont know if i could write a book, i like QM because its a new frontier with so many answers to be found, a frontier that will always be a frontier.

That shows the essence of taoist thought. Finding the meaning of an object or idea through seeing what it is not. This is described in one translation as follows...

Thirty spokes meet at a nave;
Because of the hole we may use the wheel.
Clay is moulded into a vessel;
Because of the hollow we may use the cup.
Walls are built around a hearth;
Because of the doors we may use the house.
Thus tools come from what exists,
But use from what does not.


Great example.



I cannot sit here and claim that I can describe The Tao, for to do so would be to name it, and to do that would confine it, and to do that would automatically apply meaning to what exists without it.

I thought you said you wanted to approach this maturely.

No. You can read. Go visit wikipedia and start reading about these fields of mathematics, and think about what you read.

Besides, you haven't presented an argument that has anything to do with my claims - you've mentioned that arithmetic is often used by those studying combinatorics, and sometimes used by those studying topology. That has nothing to do with what combinatorics and topology essentially are.



I'm normally paid at least $20 an hour to do what you are asking. I will tutor you via voip/IM if you want it. As far as me writing up explanations on here, people much smarter, better educated, and more articulate than I have already written volumes (haha) out there on the intertubes for you to read.



I think you'll go a lot farther with that approach - but regarding which claim, exactly?



Where is the bullying?

Maybe you would benefit from taking some responsibility for the effect of your approach.

Did you ever read what I wrote? Why would you ask a rhetorical question that has nothing to do with what I actually wrote? Notice the phrase 'can be explored'. What is the true essence of topology? Of combinatorics? Of geometry? Of actual algebra?

Investigate those and you will find arithmetic to be incidental.



All true, all presumably relevant to your point, and all irrelevant to my point of view.



Notice your language use - you say "can they work". It seems to me that you are approaching these fields from an 'applied' perspective. Regardless, the essence of topology and combinatorics has nothing to do with arithmetic. Algebra itself (actual algebra, not the algebra taught pre-university, nor the algebra used by engineers, etc) requires no arightmetic. Geometry requires no arithmetic.

Using any of these fields for a real life problem... I find it hard to imagine doing so without arithmetic.



Good. Question it. Learn more about what mathematics actually is.

You said in an earlier post which strongly suggests to me that you have little understanding of what mathematics really is. These operations have nothing to do with actual mathematics, and everything to do with 'that which is labelled math in the public school system'.



Based on the discussion so far, I think its unlikely you understood me, but you go on ahead and disagree with whatever you thought I meant.




And this has what to do with arithmetic?


ok...so prove me wrong.
I DONT KNOW HOW ELSE TO SAY THIS TO YOU OR EVERYONE ELSE. IV SAID IT MANY MANY TIMES.
MY ARGUMENT, YOUR ARGUMENT, EVERYONES ARGUMENT IS BASED ON PERCEPTION. I FULLY REALIZE AND ACCEPT THAT MY PERCEPTION IS NOT YOURS, AND THAT I MAY BE MISSING SOMETHING OR NOT SEEING THE FULL PICTURE. I COULD VERY WELL BE WRONG!
SO AGAIN, PLEASE, IF IM WRONG, TELL ME WHY. BACK IT UP. GIVE ME PROOF OR A THOUGHT PROCESS, SOMETHING.

I WANT TO LEARN
I WANT TO LEARN
TEACH ME
YOU SAY IM WRONG, YOU SAY I DONT UNDERSTAND
SO MAKE ME UNDERSTAND

IS THIS LOGIC? IF YOU DISAGREE, IF YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING ANOTHER WAY
YOUR SOOOO ILLOGICAL THAT NO ONE WILL EVEN EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY?
THATS LOGIC HUGH?
IF SOCRATES COULD SEE US NOW, WHAT WOULD HE SAY.
(YES I REALIZE I HAVE CAP LOCKS ON, IM EMPHASIZING)

im at a loss...
lets put it this way
im wrong. lets say i agknowledge that.
would you please tell me why?
i know im wrong, hmmm but i dont know why cause no one will tell me.
they dismiss my ideas becuse there not conventional.
non conventional = wrong

quantum physics is wrong

quantum physics is unconventional

(backwards on purpose)


if i offend anyone, i appologize. sincerly was not my intention.
ill drop it since no one is willing to play ball.
good luck to you all

ps, this is EXACTLY what i ws refering to in my OP.
BULLYING pure and simple

________ JUST AN OPINION __________
* * * (Not meant for invoking any argument, just something to consider -- so NO RESPONSE NECESSARY!!!)

IF ONE CANNOT STAMD THE HEAT, ONE SHOULD GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN!!!
(... Rather than turning everybody's attention to the one's twisted & illogical point of view!)* * *

Frankly, jasonpfaff, this is an Adult Network, and we can do without your constant adolescent bickering over being attacked, and HOW WE SHOULD CARRY OUT OUR ARGUMENTS... Your behavior is annoying in the least, and abusive in the most (which is a kind of an attack in itself). That constitutes the grounds for being expelled from the site...

You seem to have a beef with everybody... I suggest you take it up with the moderators -- see what they woud say???

Otherwise, you leave us no choice but filing a complaint against you! (unless you adopt an adult attitude towards carrying out the conversation without the complaints!!! ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

P.S. NO RESPONSE EXPECTED, thank you -- just consider a friendly adult advise...

I haven't been following the discussion, but would like to chime in here and declare:

Arithmetic is but a tiny slice of 'all that is mathematics'.

It just so happens that they teach arithmetic throughout elementary school, and call it 'math'.

Topology and combinatorics are just two entire fields of mathematics that can be explored without involving any arithmetic at all.

It really bugs me when people equate arithmetic and mathematics. I knew an self described 'anti-math' philosophy student (who actually disliked arithmetic) who finally discovered real math in a higher level philosophy class. He had a lot of difficulty accepting that what he was studying was actually math.

1.I don't think that what you say. But if you add to that, "and at the same respect", then I think that.

2. I never said what you say I said. I said, "arythmetic has nothing to do with logic."

-------

A. Jason, you show over and over that you seem to be unable to read what I write. If it's going to be a discussion in which you put words in my mouth which I constantly have to correct, then forget it.

B. If you think I'm bullying you, you're wrong. But I see that intelligent discourse is impossible here.

C. Let'g go windsurfing or rollercoaster-riding one day. Just because we have different ways of looking at the world, we can still be friends. Provided we never meddle in each other's way of looking at the world. That meddling would lead only to futile and irritating discussions, like the one we've just had now.

hmmmmm. try this. give me the cosign of 487. then show me the logic in your calculations. don't forget to back up your conclusion now.