When I was a kid, I hated maths. However, to do my science I had to do molarity, stats, chemical formulas etc. Now, I wonder if my teachers has approached it as a science - I might have done better. What do you think?
Um... I'd say math is more of a language than either art or science. Math is so involved with physics, it should have been made apparent how wonderful a language it was.
Math is indeed the language of science. If you doubt this, try to describe in words as precisely as you can what happens when you drop a tennis ball from shoulder height and watch it bounce to a stop. You can write several paragraphs and not come even close to the equation of height vs time h(t) = e^(-at)(A sin wt) Actually this is what it would be for simple damped harmonic motion, a weight on a spring bobbing up and down until friction caused it to die out. But you get the idea. A mere 7 symbols predicts for all time the exact position of the ball. No human communication language can come close to this. And at the highest levels, both Math and Physics are as much Art as Science because of the originality and creativity needed for new idea and concepts. In addition to that, Math is unbiquitous, pure truth and beautiful to those who see its power and elegance.
Math is an Art plain and clear. It is about the argument just like all art. The definition of math says it is an art if you can believe a definition. So we could just say it like this you liberal Math Artist. THE ART OF MATH
The Tennis ball My shoulder with a thing like a boulder to an ant falling from the slant , then bouncing to a stop Like being chased by a cop
holy crap. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Anyway I think math is more science than art because there's a "right" and a "wrong" way to tackle a problem. There's also a "right" and a "wrong" answer, with very little room for subjectivity. Art without subjectivity is not art. Computer programming is more of an art form because, like solving math problems, there is usually more than one way to do it, but in the case of computers the appropriateness of the methods used and even the solution itself is usually more of a subjective matter. I'm sure someone is going to say that Euler's Identity is artistically beautiful, and I would probably agree, but saying that's more like admiring red paint than a piece of art.
* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * * Mathematics is a tool, or a toolset. A tool of science as well as of business, engineering and many other disciplines. The use of the word "art" to include all fields of scholarship is virtually obsolete today. And the use of the word to mean skilled workmanship in any occupation or avocation is metaphorical. Art implies aesthetics; one may find aesthetic pleasure in a particularly cleverly designed plumbing infrastructure or in the route a Roomba chooses to cover an entire rug, but that doesn't make plumbing or vacuum cleaning an art. And of course mathematics by itself is not a science. Science is a method for predicting the behavior of the natural universe by deriving theories from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. Mathematics cares little for the natural universe; its theories are developed in the abstract.
and everything is maths, everything can be maths, all, physics, earth and life science, technology, computer science, economy studies, etc etc etc....
Well I'd say it is as close to pure truth as you could ever find. The theorems, proofs, discoveries over the ages have outlived any human. If that is not truth, I don't know what is. From another perspective ..... Take philosophy. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" This is regarded as political truth. But clearly it is not true for all those in power. Some treat it as a responsibility as much as power. But Math truths are eternal.
If you are going to hold something up as an eternal absolute truth i think you need to do better than 'close', where is the mathematical rigor in that? Just because humans have believed something for thousands of years does not make it true. There was a time when we believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Maybe it is as close as we are ever likely to get but that only makes it close to the truth, not your pure truth.
math is a language that is expressing truth, not pure truth. can anyone "see" numbers? ok, some have claimed to such as austistics.
Actually, one of the key differences between science and mathematics is: Scientific theories are derived from empirical observation of the natural universe. All it takes is one counterexample two hundred years later, and the theory must be revised or, in extreme cases, discarded. Therefore, the theories of science can only be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. The theories of mathematics are derived from abstractions, which are not part of the natural universe. Therefore mathematical theories can be proven absolutely true.
it has been conjectured that 'number' is a universal archetype. we all have a sense or feeling for the concept of 'one' or 'two' of some thing but there seems to be a limit to the number of things we can imagine at any one time possibly not much more than about five. once we create axioms and a symbolic logic to manipulate these quantitative ideas we soon discover that nature itself reflects our abstract world, but ultimalely the complexity of our system creates its own paradox and leaves us uneasy about the truth of it all.
I don't talk to much to dead people ,but numbers we have an intimate relationship. Factors of 2 are green in my world of imagination and yes a number bigger than the five fingers of my hand (7) is blue. or blue heavenly 7 Abstract art
Admiring red paint can run deeper than you think. Red has a color of life . Not only by blood pumping in our arteries but also as and aura of life it self. If any of you have seen a dead body freshly dead with out any animation. Well the dead lose there amber color of life and become more gray hues of the color spectrum. I admirer red paint and so did Vangouh ( can't spell)for if you look at his art you will see in some of his work a red type edging around living objects which make characters pop like real life. I love the technique and am quite sure others do and is part of what makes his paintings close to absolute truth and have stood the test of time
