Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!ncar!noao!arizona!debray From: debray@arizona.edu (Saumya Debray) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: mathematics [was Re : Language illiteracy] Message-ID: <5400@megaron.arizona.edu> Date: 8 May 88 14:31:08 GMT References: <786@trwcsed.trwrb.UUCP> <8088@ames.arpa> <765@l.cc.purdue.edu> <11526@ut-sally.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 27 In article <1940@uoregon.uoregon.edu>, Mark VandeWettering writes: > Mathematics suffers from exactly the same problems as > programming languages: ideas get muddled in notation. This is silly! Mathematical formalisms provide you with tools to define and reason about your ideas in a precise and unambiguous manner. If someone can't use these tools effectively, the problem is with him, not with mathematics. Just because I can write unintelligible code in Lisp or Prolog doesn't make them poor languages; just because I can flatten my thumb with a hammer doesn't make the hammer a bad tool. In article <11526@ut-sally.UUCP>, nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: > It's much worse than that. The basic notation -- and therefore the thought > processes it fosters -- describes a system of "eternal truth", usually > shown by the equals sign ( = ). It not only says stuff on each side is > equivalent; it implies it always has been, and always will be. Whatever > process change is needed must be artificially imposed from outside. That depends on the kind of system you're working with. First order predicate logic won't let you reason (directly) about change, but try the various temporal, modal and dynamic logics that are around. -- Saumya Debray CS Department, University of Arizona, Tucson internet: debray@arizona.edu uucp: {allegra, cmcl2, ihnp4} !arizona!debray