XDG Standard: Is Math a Science / Re: Nazi remarks.
guidod-2003- at gmx.de
Thu Feb 12 01:55:10 EET 2004
James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> George wrote:
>> To end this thread in usenet tradition I will now call myself a 'logic
> You said that you were a "Nazi" not me.
>> Actually I think that it doesn't work if I insult myslf. So you are all
>> nazis and Polpot was a harmless tree hugging hippie compared to the
>> likes of
>> you. Thus endeth the thread unless someone has better arguments then
> I will start a new thread.
George, the corrolar to Godwin's Law says that calling on it
on purpose does never work. See proof here :-)=)
James, you moved the hate word to the subject line, thereby
just trying to draw more attention on a different thing. Using
"nazi" on purpose for such thing is the worst thing I can think of.
>> gives me 4 million pages when I type in random words'.
> Is it that hard to actually try the Google search for:
> Science Mathematics
> and read a page or two of the results.
> It is not about random words, it is about the FACT that the results such
> as this:
> CEISMC: Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics, and ...
> Welcome to the CEISMC Web site! Here's an inside look at our programs,
> mission, and goals. Since our main focus is outreach to the ...
> www.ceismc.gatech.edu/ - 14k - Cached - Similar pages
> clearly are using Science & Mathematics as separate and distinct entities.
Well, I did not look into this thread until just now - I was under
the assumption that everyone knows that Math is strictly speaking
not a Science on its own but modern sciences _are_ mathematical
sciences and one should point out that sciences may as well be
carried out in non-math ways. See scholastic for reference.
Now, come down a while and think about it, on which purpose do we
use computers in the sciences field? Well, computare, calculating,
algebraics, part of mathematics. So what, may James allow that we
draw a "related" chain from computer-based(!!) sciences to Math?
And that's what some other guys are telling - if math is not listed
on its own then in which other part one would look first? Look first
on a computer? Now, let's have a look at the very first message that
started this thread:
> Strictly speaking, Mathematics is not a Science.
> However version 0.8 of the spec lists the Category: "Math" with a
> 'Related Category' of: Science.
> I don't think that this is correct. The Category: "Math", IMO,
> should not be listed with any 'Related Categories'.
In the most anal sense it might not be correct, agreed. When speaking
about computer-based stuff, it is a valid from mere existance, as
computer-based math and computer-based sciences are related.
thank you for your attention, and I'll shut up now, no use to beat on
it. *********** Btw, did you know where the term mathematics comes from?
This goes back to greek times and the four "mathemata", arithmetics,
geometry, astronomy and music(=harmonics). In roman times they were
called quadrivium, and along with the trivium (grammatics, rhetorics,
dialectics) they were called septem artes liberales. This division was
used to shape the faculties for universities up until modern times.
Of course, in modern times we come to shape research areas in just
two parts, Arts and Sciences, even that quite some stuff does not
fit right into this dualism. Well, it seems that history has moved
on a bit. However, when I look at todays universities I see that
there are lots of divisions named "mathematic&scientific". They come
in that grouping for their relation in mere real life usage, I guess.
But perhaps James will disagree on that, but I can't hear it,
since I'm outa here... have fun, guido
More information about the xdg