1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + +
Talk:Pure mathematics (view source)
Revision as of 23:39, November 23, 2008
, 23:39, November 23, 2008It is considered "pure" because ...
Pure mathematics is immediately APPLIED in physics and quantum mechanics. It receives even bigger money than the plein [[applied mathematics]] from the governments and international organisation to continue the theoretical research and applications. See [[Large Hadron Collider]]. [[User:Loulou|Loulou]] 16:45, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Pure mathematics is immediately APPLIED in physics and quantum mechanics. It receives even bigger money than the plein [[applied mathematics]] from the governments and international organisation to continue the theoretical research and applications. See [[Large Hadron Collider]]. [[User:Loulou|Loulou]] 16:45, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Disagree entirely. Where are you getting these ideas? The math that goes into physics has already been trickled through several layers of mathematical abstraction before it got to a point where people from outside fields could use it. The LHC is not an exercise in pure math, it's an exercise in [[theoretical physics]]. As for your wild claim that pure math gets more funding than applied, I don't see the [[NIH]], government labs like [[NIST]], or private industry funding more pure math than applied. The [[NSF]] funds things approximately equally, but the scale gets totally tipped to applied when you consider the other funding sources. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 03:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)
:Disagree entirely. Where are you getting these ideas? The math that goes into physics has already been trickled through several layers of mathematical abstraction before it got to a point where people from outside fields could use it. The LHC is not an exercise in pure math, it's an exercise in [[theoretical physics]]. As for your wild claim that pure math gets more funding than applied, I don't see the [[NIH]], government labs like [[NIST]], or private industry funding more pure math than applied. The [[NSF]] funds things approximately equally, but the scale gets totally tipped to applied when you consider the other funding sources. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 03:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)
I am wondering about this statement: It is considered "pure" because excessive numerical calculations rarely need to be employed in finding solutions.
What is the point of this? It makes no sense to me, and I would delete it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:39, 23 November 2008 (EST)