On Apr 7, 7:05 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 10:22 am, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > On 4/5/2013 8:47 AM, Zuhair wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 2:25 pm, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I just want to argue that > > > >> "Mathematics is analytic processing fictional or real" > > 1. All you are doing is substituting synonyms that themselves are not > defined. Define "information" to be "data". Define "mathematics" to > be "the science of quantity". Define "logic" to be "formal systems". > > Do these accomplish anything? No. You are not unlocking the mystery > of mathematics by referring to other terms of mathematics whose only > difference may be that they are at a different level of abstraction - > lower - than what you are defining. > > To "explain" mathematics or logic or formal systems, you need to > define them in terms AS UNMATHEMATICAL AS POSSIBLE. Otherwise you > still have "mathematics" - just more terms. > > You need to explain them in informal intuitive terms. Mathematics is > that which we all agree on simply by thinking. Mathematics is the > science that doesn't use the 5 senses. Definitions like these show us > what mathematics really is. >
Yes, and how is that different from the definition above (I mean in spirit of course). I said Analytic doesn't need external observation input to know their truth. Are you reading what is written or just making comments in the air.
By the way literally speaking your definition include number 5 which is a legitimate piece of mathematics, so it is defining mathematics after itself, it is circular (as written), of course you can simply overcome that by simply naming the five senses. But this definition is Trivial, you need a better one along the same general line, which I've given here.
> Saying that mathematics is sets or numbers or quantities etc.
This definition didn't mention any of those or the alike, show me where I've encountered any of those in my definition???