BF2S Forums Mathematics

liquix wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

liquix wrote:

Without math you would not be typing on a computer, driving a car, eating things you didn't grow, earning a monetary living, etc. Your friend is into philosophy to a point where reality has gone out the window, math created the pyramids, helped us plan for intercontinental voyages, mapped the globed, and provided the statistical knowledge to support our world today. I still hate doing it tho.

A species can live without computers, cars, money or an active understanding of mathematics. An individual can also eat something he didn't grow without the benefit of math. However, as mentioned above, without math at its most basic level, the universe could not exist.

So, to once again build off of an early reply: yes and no.

Enzzenmachine wrote:

Basically without maths, technologies wouldn't exist.
could you live with no technologies ?

As my ancestry would've evolved without the benefit of technologies, then yes. I'd have to say that if my species still existed, I could live. Who knows? Maybe we'd all have fangs. lol

Many species live without the use of math, but not us. Our society, our world, would crumble without math.

Exactly. The hypothetical question of whether or not humans could get along without an active understanding of math is simple. The best scenario for its non-existence would be to assume for the moment that we have not developed the ability to consciously grasp the concept of mathematics, and instead evolved (in this alternate universe) with other survival traits. That would be one way we would survive without math. A more icky way would be to hit us all with a debilitating mutation that hinders brain development in that area. Assuming we could relearn ancient survival techniques, society could theoretically live on, albeit as something else, deflated and with tremendous casualties.

But again, if math did not exist (up to and including laws not yet discovered or proven), then the universe could not hold itself together. That is my point.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

No, 'more' and 'less' are not mathematical concepts as such - they're just opposing relative concepts - like 'black' and 'white', 'good' and 'bad'. They do not have 'quantity'. It only becomes math when we start to describe the degree of 'moreness' or 'lessness' of something.

more and less are math concepts. You'd probably recognize it better as < or >.

as in... this 'meat' pile has more 'meat' than the other pile is math.


you don't need to have a specific number for it to involve math... this would become more evident to you if you took an Analysis course.

Canadian_Sniper_X wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

No, 'more' and 'less' are not mathematical concepts as such - they're just opposing relative concepts - like 'black' and 'white', 'good' and 'bad'. They do not have 'quantity'. It only becomes math when we start to describe the degree of 'moreness' or 'lessness' of something.

more and less are math concepts. You'd probably recognize it better as < or >.

as in... this 'meat' pile has more 'meat' than the other pile is math.


you don't need to have a specific number for it to involve math... this would become more evident to you if you took an Analysis course.

I see what you're saying. However, try these questions:

1. Is 'brenj' more or less than 'flooble' ?
2. Is 10 more or less than 7 ?
3. Is the music of Bob Dylan more or less than that of Mozart ?

Question 1 - we can not tell if this is a mathematical question or not - 'brenj' and 'flooble' are just nonesense.
Question 2 - clearly mathematical - the numerical quatities make it so.
Question 3 - clearly not mathematical - 'the music of Bob Dylan' is not a mathematical concept, nor is 'that of Mozart'.

Spark wrote:

This thread is more circular than the universe itself

That is mathematical (a 'circle' being a mathematical concept (though a totaly theoretical one))...

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I beg to differ. But unfortunately we can't go back and find out for sure, so it's just gonna be pure speculation on either side...

No it is much more than speculation. Human genetic and archaeological evidence clearly demonstrates that we had a sense of quantity long before we ever used a tool. Look it up. You may be speculating, but I am just passing on things I've learned in anthro classes.

Sorry, but just how exactly does "Human genetic... ...evidence clearly demonstrate that we had a sense of quantity"?

And on the question of archaeological evidence - archaeology can tell us many many truths about our past, but one thing it can only ever speculate upon is what we were like as people - questions of how we thought about and perceived the world are beyond its scope - a chard of pottery tells you nothing about the person that made the pot (yes, that is a very extreme example, but the same principle applies to the whole of archaeology).

If we know that other mammals can distinguish between quantities (and therefore be using math according to the OPs definition) and that through archaeology and genetics how ancient those families of mammals and birds are, we can conclude that the history of math is far older than human history. Do you think monkeys learned their basic quantitative abilities from us? Sorry, but they can just barely learn anything from eachother (monkeys are good at learning from trial and error, but they arent very observent, see fragaszy or vishalberghi for more info). Clearly monkeys and dolphins have been aware of quantity for millions of years before things like humans ever evolved. There is no scientific evidence for humans existing before 200,000 years ago. Most mammalian families (like canids and cetaceans) evolved more than 20 million years ago. Look up mitochondrial dna if u are curious about how we can date evolution through genetics. also look up "palynology" and "archaeological dating techniques" if u are curious about how fossils can indicate the age of various taxonomic groups. if u are curious about how we determine that animals have basic quantitative abilities, look up "capuchins reject unequal pay" by frans de waal. its just one example of animal behavior indicating a direct awareness of quantity.

Now if you are looking for a point of contention, you could just redefine math. For example you could say that counting or comparing quantities is too simple and doesn't count as math, but that something like exponential math is real math. In that case, probably no one has demonstrated any non-human animal to do any exponentially based math, so by that more restricted definition of math, you could say it was humans, or some very recent ancestor, that "invented" math. But the op set us up with his definition of math, and if it includes counting and comparing quantity then clearly math is much older than humans.

Humans of this century obviously depend on "higher" math that we have never seen used by a non-human (now im picturing a dolphin taking an organic chemistry exam, lol) But did we create higher math or discover it? One way or another, the answer to question 2 is no.

Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-03-17 04:11:47)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Canadian_Sniper_X wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

have invented all the things we have, without using mathematics.

Are you kidding?? electricity... computers... every single electrical thing created, was created with math (and physics obviously)

there is NOTHING that we have now that could have been created without some form of math.

Janysc wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

...have invented all the things we have, without using mathematics.

Oh no, that's completely backwards. Engineering means using math to solve, for one, construction problems. Could a space station be made without using math?

Yes a space station could be made without using math.

Could we construct an eye, bones, a brain or a whole body without using maths? Nature did.

We could do what nature did. We could evolve a space station, a computer, cars, electricity, anything - none of it had to be engineered.

All of it could have been invented by other means.

Any building cannot be built without math. It's not possible. You need distances of material, and where to place the material.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I see what you're saying. However, try these questions:

1. Is 'brenj' more or less than 'flooble' ?
2. Is 10 more or less than 7 ?
3. Is the music of Bob Dylan more or less than that of Mozart ?

Question 1 - we can not tell if this is a mathematical question or not - 'brenj' and 'flooble' are just nonesense.
Question 2 - clearly mathematical - the numerical quatities make it so.
Question 3 - clearly not mathematical - 'the music of Bob Dylan' is not a mathematical concept, nor is 'that of Mozart'.

1) define 'brenj' and 'flooble'...
and before you do, you can say that brenj >= flooble, or brenj <= flooble... etc.

2) obvious

3) Do you remember that > and < are called 'greater than' and 'less than'. maybe a question does not have an answer, but that just means that you haven't defined the question enough.

Blehm98 wrote:

i'll redefine mathematics...

mathematics is seeing a quantity of something, and understanding that that quantity is that quantity and not another quantity...

ie - you see 5 rocks
later on you see 1 rock

you think wth?  There were as many rocks as i have fingers before, and now there is only one finger of rock
hax!!1!1!!!

that should make more sense

If math is that simple, then many animals use it and it vastly predates man.

I know my posts are long but the question has been exhaustively answered at this point.

Marinejuana wrote:

... (long post that I won't repost) ...

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

if math did not exist (up to and including laws not yet discovered or proven), then the universe could not hold itself together. That is my point.

You so appear to understand but then you don't. The universe is not held together by math. The universe is held together by processes that we describe using math. It's a subtle difference but it's an important one. It's the difference between the physical realm of reality and the non-physical realm of ideas.

No, I'm afraid you misunderstood. At that point, I was talking about the 'process' itself, not its literal description, which is where I went into human understanding of such.

Ah, I see, ok, sorry. If you were talking about the 'process' then I was wrong - you do understand.

And this kinda demonstrates the point I was trying to make to Marinejuana - we need to define exactly what we mean by Math. As I read it, the OP is talking about our human understanding of Math. Not the 'mathematical' processes of the universe.

The process has always existed and will always exist. The human understanding of that process is what we call 'math'. The process itself is not 'math'.

It is highly likely that all animals have a sense of those underlying principles and processes. As far as we know, we humans are the only ones to have developed Mathematics.

As I said before - the difference is subtle, but it is all important. It's the difference between the physical realm of reality and the non-physical realm of ideas.

Canadian_Sniper_X wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I see what you're saying. However, try these questions:

1. Is 'brenj' more or less than 'flooble' ?
2. Is 10 more or less than 7 ?
3. Is the music of Bob Dylan more or less than that of Mozart ?

Question 1 - we can not tell if this is a mathematical question or not - 'brenj' and 'flooble' are just nonesense.
Question 2 - clearly mathematical - the numerical quatities make it so.
Question 3 - clearly not mathematical - 'the music of Bob Dylan' is not a mathematical concept, nor is 'that of Mozart'.

1) define 'brenj' and 'flooble'...
and before you do, you can say that brenj >= flooble, or brenj <= flooble... etc.

2) obvious

3) Do you remember that > and < are called 'greater than' and 'less than'. maybe a question does not have an answer, but that just means that you haven't defined the question enough.

'<' and '>' may be mathematical concepts, but 'more' and 'less' are not. That's why, in math, we have specific mathematical symbols that have specific mathematical meanings.

Whether 'the music of Bob Dylan is more or less than that of Mozart' is a purely subject, unquantifiable concept.

If we can not quantify it, we can not apply the mathematical concepts of '<' and '>' to it.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-03-17 19:52:09)

This seems like a silly thread.
How could you design and build an engine with mathmatics?

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

As far as we know, we humans are the only ones to have developed Mathematics.

As a high art, yes, but other animals are able to exercise some of the basics. "One of me, many of them. Run away!"

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-03-20 06:23:11)

Yes we need it to survive and no we didnt invent it. Read "How Long is a piece of String" if you want proof on that.