On Mar 13, 1:44 am, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote: > Tonico wrote: > > On Mar 13, 1:07 am, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com> > > wrote: > >> If that were so then the applicability of mathematics to the sciences > >> would be even more surprising than it already is. Someone may object > >> that, actually, the applicability isn't surprising because a lot of > >> mathematics was invented to be applied to the sciences. But that just > >> makes your claim look even more wrong. > > > **** Yes, some mathematics were invented to be applied to science, and > > some other mathematics were born deep from abstract theory and shear > > ammusment and then some application for them was found...or not, so? > > The formal rules that control much of mathematics are, in many cases, > > way dettached from any application whatsoever and, to me, they are > > just like rules of a game. > > They don't have to be applicable to anything in the real world, but I would have > thought that, at the very least, their aim should be to make discoveries about > numbers. Perhaps you can explain what makes one formal system a branch of > mathematics and another a game of snakes and ladders.-
+++ Once again, you "would have thought" is erred...what to do! There's no such "aim" in any maths department in any university I know of, except for the division of what's called Appliable Mathematics.
And what make something a branch of mathematics and other thing snakes and ladders is several things: depth, interest, relation to some already established part of mathematics and, most importantly and decisively: what we mathematicians decide.