On Apr 7, 7:05 am, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > That's EXACTLY what have been done here!
However I want to comment here on the part of your definition that mentions Mathematics as the science that doesn't use the senses of hearing,seeing, somatic and visceral senses, smell and taste.
Now although the general line of this definition agrees with what's written here, but the exact literal definition given in this way (which is C-B's definition) is erroneous!
There is no science that can possibly work in *absolute* deprivation of the above senses, which is what that definition confer.
Lets argue that we can have someone deprived from ALL senses whatsoever from the starting moment of his mental development, and lets say we'll cut him from ALL informational input From others that is dependent on their senses, and lets say that we can even cut any possible INNATE information transcended to him via his genome from his ancestors. Now suppose he in his thoughts managed to possess some mathematical thinking! then would that be like the one we are accustomed to??? Greatly doubtful ha!
Of course that was a hypothetical experiment, but it does outline one principle that mathematics though analytic yet still analytic facts does depend on some basic sensory input, namely that necessary to sense (read,hear or touch) the statements, and those necessary also to understand the basic rules of the game, and thus understand those statements in their light.
Truly mathematics do not depend on the five senses as with empirical sciences but the point at which it deviates from them must be outlined correctly!! and not just give an absolute utterance like the one made by C-B here.
The correct statement is the one I supplied in the head post, where I defined Analytic statements by those that do not need * additional* observation (senses based) other than that necessary to perceive (read, hear or touch) the statements themselves and recognize its structure in relevance to rules of the game let beforehand (which must be also memorized from prior perceived (read, heard or touched) stuff outlining those rules)) and thus understand it in its vein. To sum it up, an analytic statement is one that doesn't require using the senses beyond basic use of them needed to perceive those statements and understand them. And I supplied the examples in the head post.