What good is math? - Page 11

tommac · #**301** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kleindoofy

So, music and physics may be the same in as much as passive appreciation can be achieved without the "math," but if you want to "play" it, you have to learn the scales.

You dont need to know the scales to play music. It just makes it easier to understand what notes are going to sound good. However I believe that some people have a feeling for that, maybe they learn the scales sub-conciously, or whatever it is. I feel the same can happen with physics. You dont need to "Do the maths" to understand a concept.

NEOWatcher · #**302** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Ug ... the point was that "relavite" to his ability to reason and logic, he was not nearly as strong in math as he was in his ability to reason and logic.

Where in that post did I say I was commenting on what you said?

I said "a lot of bantering about...". I said that to make a clear understanding that it is the entire thread's tone that is implying something. Otherwise, I would have quoted someone.

Without that post, it would be easy for someone to read this thread and get the idea that Einstein didn't need match to "dream" up his idea.

tommac · #**303** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdvance

I think part of the problem is there is a lot of mathematics, and no mathematician knows it all. Einstein was weak in differential manifolds, and got help from an expert before formulating his General Relativity.

Exactly ... and that didnt stop Einstein ... the fact that he didnt understand how to "do the maths" didnt stop him from understanding the general concept. Grant it the math needed to be done ... in which case he got a mathmetician to do the parts he couldnt do.

tommac · #**304** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:48 PM

Thanks Jerry, This is the first post that seems to address the OQ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

You can use a conceptual model to develop a mathematical model, or you can make observation and use the observations to develop both conceptual and mathematical models.

The mathematical models, if the conceptualization is correct; should then have the power to predict past, present and future events within the boundaries of the model. What should be consistent, is that all of the mathematical arguments used to explain the physical concepts should be seamless. The irony is, accepted theories are NOT mathematically cohesive: General Relativist models are time-dependant; quantum models are not; and there is no obvious high ground. So even the concept of 'grasping GR' relies upon some unimaginable conceptual compromises, mathematically

tommac · #**305** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

General note to all:

We can continue the math metadiscussion as long as it's productive to do so. However, since the OP cannot defend his positions or otherwise reply, please address your remarks to those who can.

Oh ... I am addressing ... it is taking a month but I am addressing.

Perikles · #**306** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

You can "understand" QM and GR without having knowledge of advanced math.

I'm glad you included quotation marks. Understanding is all relative. Natural language evolved using concepts familiar to the senses in a familiar world. As soon as you get into the very small and the very large, outside the range of perception of the senses, all you can do is to make models to provide an analogy which has meaning in terms of natural language. So for example you make models of atoms by describing electron balls orbiting billiardball nucleii. Is this "understanding"? On one level, I suppose it is, but to claim to "understand" the model without resorting to maths is to deny the understanding on a much more profound level by using maths.

I suppose I don't really understand how the OP question can be anything other than rhetorical.

NEOWatcher · #**307** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Exactly ... and that didnt stop Einstein ... the fact that he didnt understand how to "do the maths" didnt stop him from understanding the general concept. Grant it the math needed to be done ... in which case he got a mathmetician to do the parts he couldnt do.

Who said he didn't understand? I heard "weak". You can fully understand how to do something and still be "weak" at it.

I fully understand and can do an oil change, but I'm weak at it and feel a mechanic can do it much better than me. Sure it costs me more, but I have piece of mind knowing that it was done better.

tommac · #**308** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 04:54 PM

You don't need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows - Bob Dylan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cougar

"If the calculus comes to vibrant life in celestial mechanics, as it surely does, then this is evidence that the stars in the sheltering sky have a secret mathematical identity, an aspect of themselves that like some tremulous night flower they reveal only when the mathematician whispers." -- David Berlinski in A Tour of the Calculus

tommac · #**309** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:00 PM

hah ... I think he had only one song on the pop charts.

I have been to Chopins Grave, his house and the church that has his heart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Root

That was so trivial that I just ignored it. Either an editing error or
a clumsiness typical of Tom's expression, implying nothing whatever
about his knowledge or lack of knowledge of Chopin's body of work.

I suppose that if it hadn't been for the juxtaposition of two such
peculiar word choices right together, kleindoofy would have let it
pass as well.

Let me go even farther off-topic to clarify my earlier comments
about the word "song". In this case, terms specifically applicable
to classical music are obviously the best choice. My longstanding
problem is to find a word that suits *all* forms of music. The word
"song" is a top contender for that use in the USA.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

tommac · #**310** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kleindoofy

No, it was the basic tone of the whole response, the assumption that one could play virtuoso piano music without ever having practiced the instrument, just by pure will. The comments on Chopin and the word "song" put it over the top.

I love this board. Who ever said that someone could play virtuoso piano music without ever practicing the instrument?

What I said was that someone could listen and practice long enough and play chopin without learning and understanding scales and timing. It would not be easy and knowing the scales and timing would help you pick up the piece but it is just a tool.

tommac · #**311** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:08 PM

I agree with you mostly here ... however ... some people think and reason differently ...

One needs to also realize the time tradeoff ... we have a limited number of time in our lives and we cant learn it all. Some musicians would rather take a path of learning to feel the music ... some would prefer to learn all of the intracate nuances, some would prefer to take a middle of the road approach.

Who is right? Should muddy waters have studied at Juliard? Would he have been a better musician for it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

The trick is they have to hear it first. Without an understanding of the theory and language of music, however, they'll likely never play a score handed to them on paper. They won't understand all those 16th and 32nd notes, the dynamic markings, or the key changes. And with all the work they put into learning a "song" that they've heard (and likely many, many times) they are left with only that song to show for it.

Learn the language, the theory, and even the history of music and you can apply it to a work you've never heard or heard of. You can apply it to music of your own creation...and this is where the analogy really breaks down for for ATM proponents. They're trying to write new "music" without knowing what the notes mean or even how to stay in key.

You can hum a little tune 'til your heart's content but if you want to be taken seriously as a "composer" learn how to write "music".

tommac · #**312** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:09 PM

Agreed ... whats your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

I do not find the comparison of music and physics relevant.

Theoretical physics has to be mathematically consistent. It is not a question of coming up with aesthetically beautiful theories, it is about coming up with theories (which might be beautiful) which are predictive and accurate.

You need math, period.

tommac · #**313** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kleindoofy

of the main argument: "what is math worth?"
.

Who posed that question?

tommac · #**314** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WayneFrancis

But this isn't the issue in my mind. tommac thinks that he can have a great understanding of physics without math.

Who said that? Please dont speak on my behalf.

I just dont like to "Do the maths". This does not mean that I dont understand some mathmatical concepts.

gzhpcu · #**315** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Please re-read the original question as I think you didnt understand it. This is not what was asked. It was a simple question and you seem to have missed the point.

Sure I got the point: you think you don't need math to come up with theories in physics.

You asked in you OP:

Quote:

Is math useful for clarification of an idea?
Or
Is math the only way to understand an issue in physics?

I answered your question. You need math for physics. You can "understand" without math, but you can not contest mainstream physics or come up with an idea without it.

gzhpcu · #**316** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Agreed ... whats your point?

My point is what I said: people began comparing composing music with coming up with theories in physics. No comparison possible, because you need math for physics but not for music.

worzel · #**317** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

While I dont claim Hendrix was musically inept again I think he is someone who was more of the musical visionary than the precise classically trained musician. Both have their place.

I think Hendrix was musically far less visionary than people make out. If you analyse it, a lot of it is just super fast pentatonic blues scales (yes, scales, that he must have learnt and practised somehow) with a lot of distortion and fuzz. If you slow his stuff down and play it on an acoustic guitar it quickly transforms back in to classic blues licks.

Don't get me wrong, I found him inspirational when I was a wannabe guitarist, but his real skill was his sheer technical ability and his ability to ad-lib (i.e. jam, or groove, or whatever you want to call it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

You dont need to know the scales to play music. It just makes it easier to understand what notes are going to sound good. However I believe that some people have a feeling for that, maybe they learn the scales sub-conciously, or whatever it is. I feel the same can happen with physics. You dont need to "Do the maths" to understand a concept.

I know what you're getting with the scales. Some self taught people may not know their melodic minor from their harmonic minor, but they might be able to hear the difference and play them, because they have effectively learned them (although try and get any musician to play back a whole tone scale - if they've not come across it before I doubt they'd just be able to feel it).

But I think this whole analogy is weak anyway (yes, I know you didn't raise it). Music comes from within, and music theory is really the study of what works musically in our heads, whereas physics comes from without and (as a previous poster said) requires mathematical models to do anything more than hand wave.

tommac · #**318** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robross

Probably right before tommac was suspended. After that this thread definitely took a turn...to somewhere else.

Rob

I have no idea what happened. This is what happens when you leave a bunch of mathmeticians on a board rambling.

Hornblower · #**319** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

I have no idea what happened. This is what happens when you leave a bunch of mathmeticians on a board rambling.

Can you point to some specific posts, identify the mathematicians, and tell us in appropriate mathematical detail what you mean by rambling?

tommac · #**320** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:35 PM

Amen Brother!

Quote:

Originally Posted by nokton

Alainprice advances well the fundamentals of mathmatics in understanding, but have to
ask the question about what is meant by understanding. If I may, 2+2 =4. We can all
understand that, but grasping a concept that a complex equation reveals requires
more than just understanding the math. As for Albert, he had the concept before
the math, Maxwell helped Albert to put his concepts into mathamatical equations.
Enjoy your posts.
Nokton

tommac · #**321** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:39 PM

Not sure what you dont understand. Here is the OP again:

Quote:

Is math useful for clarification of an idea?
Or
Is math the only way to understand an issue in physics?

Is the answer A or B ... OR is your opinion A or B and why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwnielsen

XXX

[ addition: I just noticed that there are 9 pages of replies and the OPer is now suspended. Oops! ]

XXX

Hi, tommac,

I don't understand this kind of question. Math is just some symbols and assumptions that have been proven to be extremely useful and consistent in the past for talking about quantitative and logical expressions. So, it is the system preferred by definition. If you want to abandon that approach, you could form your own conventions. That means, however, that you will probably be relearning mathematical tools and relationships accidentally in the process. It also means that you needs be developing an interpretive representational system to translate your conventions and understandings so that others may understand them.

The Bayes theorem is an elegant concept. Still, how would you think to express it? A wordy statement? Or have to rederive the useful form every time?

As an equation

P(E|S) = P(E)P(S|E) / [ P(E)P(S|E) + (1-P(E))P(S|~E) ]

a person could use mnemonics, like a little rhyme, "PEZ, PEPSI over PEPSI, 1-PE, P.S. not E" or something.

I certainly agree that in general it is best to have the truest and most basic understanding, but a certain level of memorization works to bring the facts back on the table quickly for consideration.

I think what you are debating is two views:
>Mathematical expression as the means of analysis and elegance in its own right
>Mathematics as a shorthand for keeping track of discoveries made in more-metaphorical word-based ways of thinking

And, really, they go hand-in-hand, given what I said of what math is in the beginning.

kleindoofy · #**322** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

... Lets say that Einstein was more like Miles Davis ... one who could pick up his horn and totally be into the groove. ...

Interestingly enough, some people like to imagine Mile Davis as some kind of autodidactical slum dog genius, while he in fact attended the Julliard School, one of the best, hardest, and most prestigious and formal music conservatories in the world.

QED

tommac · #**323** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:42 PM

Please post an exact example of this. I dont know where I said I have a gut feel and I am not sure about the rest of it. What usually happens is I ask a question that really is more logical than mathmatical ... then someone posts "show the maths". Which maths? All of it? Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WayneFrancis

The problem Tommac has is clear for anyone that has followed all of his threads.

Tommac thinks he has this great "gut feel" about how the universe works and that his gut tells him there are some big problems that everyone but he has missed.

He then describes the problem as he sees it but after a bunch of people try to describe where his reasoning is wrong someone, like me, will get fed up and actually show him the math and Tommac still does not adjust his "gut feel" view of the universe to what the universe actually does. After multiple posts saying the same thing over and over some, like me, normally tells him that if he just spent 15 minutes doing the math he would see his for himself that his view of the universe is wrong.

To which he opens this thread and tries to justify why his view of the universe could be right even without the math. True his view of the universe could be correct without needing to know the math but every instance I've seen on here his view of the universe do not equal what we see in the universe.

tommac · #**324** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by worzel

Sorry JeffRoot, but tommac said:

Take it from some one else who does have at least some experience in this. You do very much need to learn about and practice scales, arpeggios, chords, 16ths, 32nds, triplets, key signatures, time signatures, modulations, etc. etc. if you want to play music more complicated than simple 3 chord rock progressions (which still requires some of these things). Love of practice might get you to the stage where you can play Chopin, but love of the music alone won't. It's nonsense.

Not receiving instruction, and not learning or practising are two entirely different things. You can get there by being self taught (and due to the lack of formal training you may only understand these things in your own intuitive way) but you won't be able to play Chopin (or much else) by simply loving the music. Maybe this is just prejudice from my own lack of ability, but I seriously doubt there's anyone out there who can't sight read piano music (i.e. play it as they read it) but who could play Chopin by ear. Typically, one can play by ear only a fraction of what one can play by rote or reading.

Again ... you dont need to learn / practice scales to play any piece of music. Look at all of the guitar tabs that are out there. I can pick up a piece and listen to the song ... and learn to play many songs. If they had tab for Chopin I could play that Chopin song.

This is without learning scales ... without learning what a 32nd is ... just getting the feel from listening to it ... and knowing where my fingers need to be. I dont even need to know what key I am playing in.

worzel · #**325** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

I love this board. Who ever said that someone could play virtuoso piano music without ever practicing the instrument?

What I said was that someone could listen and practice long enough and play chopin without learning and understanding scales and timing. It would not be easy and knowing the scales and timing would help you pick up the piece but it is just a tool.

I don't understand why you keep putting it like this. You simply couldn't be good enough to play Chopin without having effectively already learned your scales and your 16ths and 32nds, whether formally or otherwise. You just don't seem to get that scales, 16ths, etc. are the fundamental building blocks of music, not just some handy drills that help.

tommac · #**326** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:47 PM

On top of all this ... I would say that the feel of the piece is the more important part. Once can learn all of the theory, scales, timing ... be perfect ... but not play the piece with any feel and this feel is hard if not impossible to teach. In this case imagination is more important than knowledge

Quote:

Originally Posted by worzel

I agree with everything else you wrote, but I disagree with this, especially as music is being used here as an analogy to physics. Of course, to be considered an expert, you'd be expected to know the language, but to really understand [ the music of ] Bach I don't think you need to know anything at all. And I think that makes music rather different to every other discipline we have. Any one can critique music solely on how it emotionally impacts on them because ultimately music is about communicating emotion. All the learning and practising that musicians do will most likely increase the musician's appreciation of the music, but it is only necessary so they can communicate it to the masses. I don't think there's any parallel really. I suppose a physicist can move a lay audience to tears with his equations, but maybe not in the way they'd pay for

gzhpcu · #**327** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Not sure what you dont understand. Here is the OP again:

Is the answer A or B ... OR is your opinion A or B and why.

I never said I did not understand anything.

I answered your question. To spell it out: You can not truly understand mainstream physics without math. This entails both: understanding an issue and clarifying an issue.

Why, you ask? Because nobody ever successfully did so. Physics has become so compex, that you absolutely need math.

Gillianren · #**328** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

You dont need to know the scales to play music. It just makes it easier to understand what notes are going to sound good. However I believe that some people have a feeling for that, maybe they learn the scales sub-conciously, or whatever it is. I feel the same can happen with physics. You dont need to "Do the maths" to understand a concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

I love this board. Who ever said that someone could play virtuoso piano music without ever practicing the instrument?

What I said was that someone could listen and practice long enough and play chopin without learning and understanding scales and timing. It would not be easy and knowing the scales and timing would help you pick up the piece but it is just a tool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Again ... you dont need to learn / practice scales to play any piece of music. Look at all of the guitar tabs that are out there. I can pick up a piece and listen to the song ... and learn to play many songs. If they had tab for Chopin I could play that Chopin song.

This is without learning scales ... without learning what a 32nd is ... just getting the feel from listening to it ... and knowing where my fingers need to be. I dont even need to know what key I am playing in.

Do you play an instrument? First off, your claim that you don't have to know "timing" is simply laughable. Your reference to "that Chopin song" gets me, too. And sure, there are a few basic songs that you can do a basic version of with a tab book. However, if you have any musical sense, you can hear the difference between someone who is playing from one versus someone who's actually playing off the music. You are never going to get a Chopin tab book because Chopin is simply too complicated. (Here's where the flawed analogy picks back up.) You can fake the easy stuff. If you are exceptionally skilled, you can get the hard stuff by ear. However, 99% of people at least really are going to spend hours putting in practice, and, yes, that includes scales. Sir Paul McCartney can't read music. True. However, you can tell by listening that he knows the scales, knows the notes, knows chord progressions. Great musicians have to, even if they don't pick them up formally.

worzel · #**329** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Again ... you dont need to learn / practice scales to play any piece of music. Look at all of the guitar tabs that are out there. I can pick up a piece and listen to the song ... and learn to play many songs. If they had tab for Chopin I could play that Chopin song.

This is without learning scales ... without learning what a 32nd is ... just getting the feel from listening to it ... and knowing where my fingers need to be. I dont even need to know what key I am playing in.

Guitar tab isi a formal notation. It's like a trumpet player writing in the fingering about each note. Years ago it was always ambiguous because it didn't denote note length, so you had to listen to the piece and get the rhythm by ear, or read the rhythm from the accompanying music. Nowdays they incorporate the note length notation from standard musical notation into guitar tab.

Either way, you're gonna have to know how to read 16ths, 32nds, etc. from the notation (standard or tab), or hear them and recognize them for what they are. And you won't unless you've put a lot of practise into hearing (or reading) and playing back 16ths and 32nds (and scales, chords, arpeggios, etc.)

AndrewJ · #**330** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 06:29 PM

Would be good if there were a branch of maths equivalent to atonal serialism: you could just learn the digits in a range then stick 'em in in any old order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

I have been to Chopins Grave, his house and the church that has his heart.

You've lived in Warsaw? I used to work in Krakow. I think old Chopin is a bit over-memorialised, he also has a grave in Pere Lachaise. It's not like he changed music like Debussy.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Good aliens are bad?	Teabinge	Life in Space	142	19-December-2008 09:45 PM
Good luck, bad luck; who knows?	Buttercup	Off-Topic Babbling	7	15-December-2008 09:53 PM
Some thoughts on 24 (WITH SPOILERS)	Glom	Small Media at Large	4	10-June-2006 10:19 PM
Changes to SW, Original Trilogy -- Your Opinions	Disinfo Agent	Off-Topic Babbling	21	19-May-2005 11:26 PM
Apollo 13 Hoax?	SAMU	Conspiracy Theories	209	24-November-2001 05:04 PM