Please provide some examples. (I seriously want to see them, as I can't recall seeing any myself.)

You would support the 24-hour of someone who posts before reading the rules just because they wrote "u" instead of "you"? That's a bit over the top, and a good way to easily scare off new members.

What is the position of the forum on splitting infinitives, or need I ask?

__________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

In the 1972 anthology, 'Again, Dangerous Visions', edited by Harlan Ellison,
cartoonist Gahan Wilson contributed a story titled "".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

Attached Images

!.gif (161 Bytes, 129 views)

The forum prefers "miniscule" (in 500 posts) to "minuscule" (in 270 posts).

I was going to put in a word for Group Theory as an essential component of Mathematics.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

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

Rob

The principle direction was to define mathematics = everything.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Sorry, but my excuse is simply that any attempt on my part to show why mathematics does have relevance to physics is getting absolutely nowhere against those who think that it does not. It wouldn't surprise me if others have had the same experience.

It is certainly arguable that a thread on the use and abuse of English within BAUT might have some value in its proper place.

agingjb,

I don't recall anyone, in my entire life, ever expressing the idea that
mathematics does not have relevance to physics. Certainly not here
on BAUT. Certainly not in this thread!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Check my user name. It gives me a good excuse to boldly split infinitives.

I have actually done just this...I think you'd excuse it though. Sometimes in programming you do things like representing a certain configuration or option with a numeric value, or precalculating constants for certain values. Of course, you name those values to help keep everything straight and make things readable, and x is just a letter while * is an actual operator, so it's entirely possible to end up with things like: "kInputScale_10x*z"

Coincidentally, I also just finished a certain book referred to in your signature...
Five exclamation points!!!!!

While there are certainly still occasional guys out there who can get by without much maths, I've recruited vanishingly few traders in recent years who did not have a university level grasp of the subject. This is the way that the industry is shifting in general, with the old-school barrow boys heading off, and being replaced with people with just as much "street smarts", but also with a few more tools in their intellectual arsenal.

My own area (multi asset-class exotics) went this way years ago, as you can't really even start to price anything, let alone risk manage it, without a good understanding of maths.

Although you could in theory trade some things without this, I'm struggling to work out which areas this could apply in nowadays. Even a cash equities trader will need to know about correlations and covariances to keep his risk profile sensible, commodities traders must deal with forward curves, and fixed income traders with bond maths, convexity, and so on.

I suppose that you can trade cash futures on a single underlying with no maths; is that your area?

This one's easy, you subtracted the starting time from the ending time. You may have made this easier by having a starting time of zero, but that does not alter the fact that you did the calculation.

Any competent experimenter would also have repeated the trial, with several swings in each trial, and averaged the results, as well as giving error bars.

The fact that you missed all of this out in no way affects the fact that to do it properly uses maths. What you have actually done is reduced the experiment's accuracy to below the point at which it makes any useful measurement, to try to justify to your original incorrect assertion.

It is not really interesting to speculate as to why you'd do that, though.

Yes, I know arithmetic is not the whole of maths, but there are some people out there who try to get through life even without any basic arithmetic. An interesting event for me was once when my parents had a tiny supermarket shop, and one particular boy used to come in every Saturday morning with a fixed amount of money. He bought one item of sweets, paid for it, went out, returned 5 minutes later and repeated the process of buying one item up to a dozen times until he had insufficient money left to buy anything. This drove my parents crazy at the checkout, until we realized that he was unable to work out how much he could buy for his money - he just could not add up.

He still managed to buy what he wanted, and I think I am right in saying that this idiotic way of solving the problem is in fact exactly the method a computer uses for arithmetical computation, only rather more quickly: microseconds rather than the whole Saturday morning.

__________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

No, I did not not subtract anything. I did no calculation whatever.

I did that. Perhaps twenty times over a five-minute interval.

I did not average the results, nor did I take any measurements that
would provide error bars. I estimate my result of 1-3/4 seconds was
accurate to within 1/4 second. I could have said that at the time,
since it might be helpful information, but my expression of the result
to a precision of 1/4 second suggests that the accuracy was to the
nearest quarter second.

How accurate did it need to be to be useful?

Your attitude is certainly interesting. It stands out prominently.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

I think it depends on how you're working the analogy. If the actual purchase is the point where the any results of a calculation are written to permanent storage or - more or less the same thing - reported to a server (this is the best analogy I can come up with), then different people make different choices about how to structure the application.

Some programs do all the calculations at once and then store the results. Other programs do something a bit more like running one calculation, logging the result, doing the next calculation, logging the result, and so on. The latter case is more common in business applications that store the data in databases, and it's usually done so that the server has a log of everything. It's a rather brutish and inelegant way to achieve data security in my opinion and it's not terribly common practice from what I've seen, but folks do do it.

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

I was thinking of something much more basic than that: the mechanics of addition and subtraction in a CPU.

__________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

You really are being tiresome here. If you claim that you combined many results to one representative number without using maths, then you are being obtuse beyond reasonableness.

It clearly amuses you to act this way, but not me, so I'll leave this childish game to you, and add nothing else. Perhaps you like having someone play a guessing game about how you worked it out in a way that you can call it "not maths", but I'm not going to indulge playground antics that I grew out of thirty years ago.

Perikles,

I'd sorta like for you to have been right, but computers don't do arithmetic
anything like how the kid apparently did it. And I suspect that the kid was
only allowed to buy one item at a time, so that he wouldn't spend all his
allowance on candy... which he did anyway.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

I didn't claim that I combined many results to one representative
number without using maths. And I didn't combine multiple results
into one representative number using maths. None of your guesses
have been right so far.

You failed to answer this question, though:
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

That's funny, it's now 275.

Actually, I think 500 is the limit. So, for instance, if I limit the search to Science and Space forums, I get 365, and an additional 297 from The Proving Grounds, and 99 more from General Interest.And, in addition, group therapy.

You said you were going to add nothing else, but you edited your
post to add another sentence.

There is no need for you to guess about what I did. I said what I did.
I estimated the period from direct observation. I did not "work it out"
by calculation. I "worked it out" by constructing a pendulum and
observing it, as I said. No calculations. No mathematics was used.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

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.

Skills taught as standard fair in the second semester Investments class for Finance majors.

Not mine. My successful trading involved being an expert in a particular market niche, then spotting companies which I felt had new products (like the rest of them) but who ran their companies with more business acumin than the rest. Mostly I guessed right - enough to counter the wrongs.

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.

Hmmm, that seems more about the person than the topic ...

Anyway, here's an interesting and relevant 3min video on TED.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

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.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

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

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

It is nonsense, yes, but it isn't what Tom was saying. You and
kleindoofy both interpret what tommac said in such a way as to
make it nonsense. I'm convinced that your interpretations are wrong,
because I can interpret what he said such that it makes sense.

I disagree that it is necessary to learn what scales, arpeggios, chords,
16ths, 32nds, triplets, key signatures, time signatures, modulations,
etc. are, or to learn anything about those things in order to be able
to use them in playing Chopin or anyone else's music. What is
required is an ability to distinguish notes by ear; a sense of time and
rhythm; an ability to control the motion of one's hands and fingers
precisely and quickly, and a good memory. All of those are natural
talents, and all of them are developed and improved through practice.

I may have been unclear. I meant to distinguish between learning
music theory versus not learning music theory. I say that learning
music theory is completely unnecessary to the ability to play even
complex music well. Just as learning language theory is completely
unnecessary to the ability to speak well. In both cases there are
innumerable things that need to be learned and practiced. But the
theory of what those things are and why they work is not among
the innumerable things that need to be learned and practiced.

There is naturally an extremely close connection between playing
music and knowing music theory. That is because people who are
interested in a subject generally learn everything they can about it.
But learning the theory won't necessarily make a person a better
performer, and isn't required in order to be a good performer.

This is what I called "a gross misinterpretation" when kleindoofy
said essentially the same thing. (Quoted at the top of this post.)

Tom was not saying that loving the music or having a desire ("will")
to play it gives a person the ability to play it well. His was was saying
that a person can learn the music. Love of the music is just the
motivation for learning it. Not the means. Tom's point, then, was
that a person can learn the music without learning the theory which
describes the music. And, if they have all the other required talents,
they may learn to play that music well, without learning the theory
which describes it.

The music comes first. The theory which describes the music comes
afterward. The theory could not exist without the music existing first.

The burden of proof is on me to support the opposite of your first
statement here (that there are people who can play Chopin well
without being able to read the music), but is on you to support your
second statement. Of course, I only need to come up with a single
example supporting my assertion, while your second assertion appears
to require a rather difficult survey and statistical analysis. Your proof
will require math-- mine won't.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves