Why Study Math?

[Jonathan]

EllethValatari, I think your essay is interesting and worth considering.
(Though I agree with Midge about paragraphing. I actually cut and pasted your wall of text and introduced paragraphs myself to make it legible).

Am I getting your conclusion right? Your answer to "why study maths?" is (apart from it being practical) because maths is a kind of beauty and a way of coming closer to God?

I think practicality must always be the #1 reason for why math should be taught in schools. Poetry, another kind of beauty, isn't nearly as useful and thus can't be mandatory in the way maths classes are. Wouldn't the question "why study poetry?" elicit the same points, i.e. beauty and divinity (or the closeness thereof), without you having to deal with the sheer usefulness of the subject?

For the sake of correctness I thought I'd comment the following quote:

Originally Posted by (K.C. Cole, Geometry Rules the Universe)

“Mother Nature wears geometry on her sleeve, she spins the stars around in spirals, molds planets into perfect spheres, sends water undulating downstream in sine waves, pulls projectiles into neat parabolas and holds together the hydrogen atoms in water molecules at precisely 105 degrees”

While mathematics can definitely be found in nature, K.C. Cole is a bit too avid about it
Planets are far from perfect spheres. You touch on that subject yourself in the next paragraph when you write that there is no such thing as a perfect circle in nature.
Furthermore the angle of the hydrogen atoms in water is not "precisely 105 degrees". First, the number is rounded. Second, the angle varies constantly. 105 degrees however is the most stable angle. So at any given point, chances are biggest that the angle is about 105 in a water molecule, rather than any other angle.
Then there's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which seems to pervade the universe and shatter all hopes of perfection, statics and symmetry


Midge, it is actually not so probable that Adam and Eve knew that 2x3=6. Linguists and anthropologists have studied how an-alphabetic groups perceive language. Amongst other discoveries, it seems reading is a necessity for a group to even develop mathematics. Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, aboriginal tribes in Australia had no written language and also no numbers! Words like "one" and "many" were sufficient. So indeed, it is possible to live and NOT know mathematics. At least it used to be

[Earniel]

This quote, poetic though it may be:

“Mother Nature wears geometry on her sleeve, she spins the stars around in spirals, molds planets into perfect spheres, sends water undulating downstream in sine waves, pulls projectiles into neat parabolas and holds together the hydrogen atoms in water molecules at precisely 105 degrees”
(K.C. Cole, Geometry Rules the Universe).

...is in contradiction of what you say later:

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

Our understanding of π exists to show what a perfect circle is despite the fact that no such thing is found in nature.

How can perfect spheres exist, if perfect circles do not?

[EDIT:I see Jonathan beat me to it.]

Personally I think finding a perfect sphere in nature is more easily achieved than getting a horse and a narwhal (going on modern imagery of unicorns) produce offspring. Point is, I was pretty sure perfect spheres do exist in nature, but as I previously said, maths was never my forte, so what would I know?

On the whole, I also find the last part, in which you compare maths to God and lists its shortcomings in that comparison, somewhat pointless. Nothing can compete with any god in the minds of their believers, which robs the comparison of any usefulness it might have had.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Personally I think finding a perfect sphere in nature is more easily achieved than getting a horse and a narwhal (going on modern imagery of unicorns) produce offspring.

Ooo, that is intriguing. Of course, you REALLY don't want to think about the process ([ewewewewewewewew), but still . . . it would totally work.

[EllethValatari]

Originally Posted by Midge

ESSAY:

No offense, but you need to go to the writer's workshop section and read the posts about separating paragraphs...
The best essays are those which are written like a story, or those that literally follow a train of thought. I realize your teachers probably require this format, but it mostly just quashes good writing talent.

MATH:

Sorry about the paragraphing...I saw that and tried to fix it...had no idea there was help in the WW for it.

Actually, my teacher does not require any specific sort of writing style or outline. I believe that it is good to state what you are going to argue before you argue it; otherwise the reader doesn't know how to approach your work. I have to disagree that the best essays are written like a story, for some essays (i.e. concerning math) require a more factual and systematic approach.

[EllethValatari]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

How can perfect spheres exist, if perfect circles do not?

Personally I think finding a perfect sphere in nature is more easily achieved than getting a horse and a narwhal (going on modern imagery of unicorns) produce offspring. Point is, I was pretty sure perfect spheres do exist in nature, but as I previously said, maths was never my forte, so what would I know?

On the whole, I also find the last part, in which you compare maths to God and lists its shortcomings in that comparison, somewhat pointless. Nothing can compete with any god in the minds of their believers, which robs the comparison of any usefulness it might have had.

Actually, I am not contradicting myself. First, in quoting someone, I am not expecting you to assume I agree with the person. Secondly, the paragraph following Kole's quote is not in agreement with it, but critiquing that worldview.

About my comparison between math and God' redemption, the reason connected these ideas was to show both the pros and cons of math.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

Actually, I am not contradicting myself. First, in quoting someone, I am not expecting you to assume I agree with the person. Secondly, the paragraph following Kole's quote is not in agreement with it, but critiquing that worldview.

Ah, I didn't get that impression entirely from reading.

About my comparison between math and God' redemption, the reason connected these ideas was to show both the pros and cons of math.

But shouldn't it make more sense to compare maths to something it can actually be compared to? How can maths not offering redemption be a con if maths was never meant to offer redemption in the first place? Are you going to consider it a negative point if your car doesn't spontaneously generate food? Or that the Spanish language doesn't show you compassion?

[Comic Book Guy]

The jump from talk about Math to something about a god just seemed like a total non-sequitur. Bertrand Russell would have balked.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

Actually, I am not contradicting myself. First, in quoting someone, I am not expecting you to assume I agree with the person. Secondly, the paragraph following Kole's quote is not in agreement with it, but critiquing that worldview.

I'm a bit confused as to why you would quote something sheerly for the sake of critiquing it with another quote. Am I misunderstanding what you said?

I am not expecting you to assume I agree with the person.

In general when writing a 'scientific' paper I would strongly suggest avoiding quoting things that you don't completely agree with, unless you follow it up with a personal statement to point out why you disagree with it. In that case, the quote you are critiquing also must have a strong connection to the point you are trying to make.

About my comparison between math and God' redemption, the reason connected these ideas was to show both the pros and cons of math.

I think what you have written is a decent academic paper, aside from having a few too many quotes, but overall I don't feel that you have made a very strong argument.


I say this with all respect, and I am sure you are quite intelligent both in general and for your age, but I think a problem is that you are approaching a topic which is too big for a 10ish paragraph paper, and that you are trying to make an argument about two topics which are extremely complex. From reading this paper, I have the impression that you do not know enough about how the two topics function to actually effectively make the argument you are making.

I am not saying that in an attempt to discourage you, and I think it's great that you're learning to how to think through things and make arguments like this. But I think you would have more luck if you began with a topic that is somewhat more quantifiable and easily stepped into than how God and math relate .

[Nurvingiel]

I agree with Comic Book Guy. If you want to understand any science at all then you must study math (for advanced science, go up to a basic calculus level at least).

In other words, this.

If you want to be able to handle money with reasonable competence, understand the marketplace, and not get hosed on your mortgage, then you should probably take all the math levels in high school at the least and/or accounting.

My husband is doing a business degree and they're going to make him take differential calculus. This isn't even a science degree, but it does have a lot to do with money and economics.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Just as a note, that's one of xkcd's best. And HI THERE! Haven't seen you in a while!

[JasonST]

Every subject in the plant that we study involves maths, if there was no Maths, the world wouldn't have been made up to this standard. Maths if life

[EllethValatari]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I say this with all respect, and I am sure you are quite intelligent both in general and for your age, but I think a problem is that you are approaching a topic which is too big for a 10ish paragraph paper, and that you are trying to make an argument about two topics which are extremely complex. From reading this paper, I have the impression that you do not know enough about how the two topics function to actually effectively make the argument you are making.

I am not saying that in an attempt to discourage you, and I think it's great that you're learning to how to think through things and make arguments like this. But I think you would have more luck if you began with a topic that is somewhat more quantifiable and easily stepped into than how God and math relate .

I agree. As I wrote before my essay, I had to write it in one night. I was extremely upset because of the lack of time to develop all my thoughts, and if I could have, it would have been a much longer, better essay.

[brownjenkins]

Mathematical instruction is a grounding tool for the human species. Our biological existence is naturally disorganized and inconsistent, so we tend to look to look for consistencies to bind us better for day to day life. Math, like grammar, religion or morality, represents a structuring of human thought that allows us to surivive better as we mature.

In other words, it's the *doing* of math that what it is mostly about.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Mathematical instruction is a grounding tool for the human species. Our biological existence is naturally disorganized and inconsistent, so we tend to look to look for consistencies to bind us better for day to day life. Math, like grammar, religion or morality, represents a structuring of human thought that allows us to surivive better as we mature.

In other words, it's the *doing* of math that what it is mostly about.

I would be hesitant to describe it as simply a structuring of thought, since most branches of mathematics can be applied to objects. I'd qualify the statement by saying that it's a way of systematizing the structure that already exists in the world.

Either way, it's certainly a good explanation of why mathematics meshes with philosophy.

Hello, by the way! Haven't seen you in a while.

[Mari]

I left high school with a failing grade for Maths and I can't say I ever felt that it was too bad that I just don't understand probabilities etc. I never needed it.
On the other hand, basic counting, adding, etc. is rather useful when I'm in a store or thinking out a budget for my next school year. However, this is elementary school level.

I read the argument that MAths structures your thinking or something similar above a few times. What do you mean? I could never think at a Mathematical level, wrap my head around formulas etc., yet I can write a structured and thought out academic paper.
I was taught how to do that in my Dutch classes.

For me, any Math beyond elementary school holds nothing but torture.

[brownjenkins]

/salute GW!

Mathematics is philosophy in its most simplified form. We take the most basic concepts we can perceive, define them as "one", and then go from there.

Most of reality is trying to figure out exactly what the "one" is, and most of physics shows us that one plus one tends to be more or less than the sum of the parts. Math's structure is only the one we choose to give it.

Mathematics is a reference point for our perception of reality, much like vision is the reflection of the small spectrum of colors that we can see with our eyes. It has meaning, but it's and extremely subjective one.

[Alcuin]

Mathematics is one branch of learning that is discovered, not invented. (Although mathematical notations and techniques are invented.) It is quite real: but we can neither see it nor touch it. We draw pictures of things happening in mathematics – graphs, for instance – but however accurate they may be, they are only pictures, not reality.

Jonathan mentioned earlier that (and I think this is a fair elision; Jonathan will correct me if he disagrees)

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Linguists and anthropologists have studied how an-alphabetic groups perceive language. ... it seems reading is a necessity for a group to even develop mathematics. ... [For] tribes [with] no written language and also no numbers! Words like "one" and "many" were sufficient.

I do not know that I concur with these particular linguists and anthropologists. There are scattered across the globe a great many archeoastronomical sites and devices; and while the more sophisticated may argue that “one, two, many” is a perfectly good way for the illiterate to count, Tolkien himself provides the correct rejoinder in Ghân-buri-Ghân’s reply to Éomer’s insults in “The Ride of the Rohirrim”:

I count many things: stars in sky, leaves on trees, men in the dark. You have a score of scores counted ten times and five. They have more.

Mathematics is a language, but not one made by men. We represent it with linguistic and artistic forms of our own devising, but we did not invent the truth that underlies it. For its beauty and utility alone, we can admire and study it; but there may be more to mathematics than we imagine.

Why you all thinking too much. There is a very simple answer. The main reason for studying mathematics is that it is interesting and enjoyable.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Because thinking too much is interesting and enjoyable. Seriously, though, that's a good answer. I believe in doing things for their own sake. Welcome!

[Mari]

Welcome Daisy!

Originally Posted by Daisy

Why you all thinking too much. There is a very simple answer. The main reason for studying mathematics is that it is interesting and enjoyable.

Yes, that. Or sheer torture. >_<