Date: Jul 11, 2013 11:36 PM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: All mathematics (in the universe) is just increase or<br> decrease...

Donald Sauter posted Jul 12, 2013 3:10 AM:
> If I understand, one may not make any statement
> without defining all the key words in the statement?
> I can't say, "Some fire engines are red," for
> r example, without defining "fire engine" and "red"?
> Even if I'm talking to an audience that knows what a
> a fire engine is, and what red is?
>
> I honestly believe we are all on just about the same
> wavelength as far as "addition" and "multiplication"
> are concerned. I will admit to a very slight problem
> with "mathematics", if one wants to be difficult. I
> think most audiences would know what I mean by
> "mathematics" - that "numbery" stuff that we use to
> solve problems in all kinds of fields. No, I'm not
> referring to sets and patterns and symmetry and
> geometric "proofs" and all the other non-numbery
> stuff we may have pulled in under the math umbrella.
> I see in a recent thread we're not really sure if
> f logic is a part of math.
>
> So, if it wasn't obvious, math = numbery stuff.
>
> Are we on the same wavelength now? If so, and there
> is lingering disagreement with my claim, I'd like to
> hear about math's third fundamental operation. I
> just don't recall any such thing up through partial
> differential equations.
>

No.
+++++++
The 'numbery stuff' CONTRIBUTED SIGNIFICANTLY to development of our ideas about the 'non-numbery stuff'.

Now, the 'non-numbery stuff' CONTRIBUTES SIGNIFICANTLY to development of our ideas about the 'numbery stuff'.
+++++++

If the above is taken *fully* on board, along with some practical means to handle such relationships in complex systems - then I may possibly be on the 'same wave-length' as you. (I do not speak for others here).

GSC