4,781
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + +
Talk:Pure mathematics (view source)
Revision as of 18:50, November 24, 2008
, 18:50, November 24, 2008reply to RSchlafly
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)
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)
:The point is to get at the meaning of "pure" in the name. Why use that word instead of, say, "theoretical" or "abstract"? What is it about this kind of mathematics that gives it a sense of purity? In my opinion, it's the lack of numerics, which is associated with brute force and inelegance. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:59, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:The point is to get at the meaning of "pure" in the name. Why use that word instead of, say, "theoretical" or "abstract"? What is it about this kind of mathematics that gives it a sense of purity? In my opinion, it's the lack of numerics, which is associated with brute force and inelegance. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:59, 23 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, pure is opposite to applied. There are pure matheticians who use numerical calculations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:18, 24 November 2008 (EST)
:::I agree that pure math as a subject is the opposite of applied math. But that wasn't my point. My point is the ''name'' that is used for "the opposite of applied". They use the word ''pure''. Why? What is it about pure mathematics that makes it pure? That's what I'm getting at. It's the lack of numerical calculations that makes it pure. Some numerical calculations creep up occasionally (like Minkowski bounds in number theory) but for the most part they are not present in ''pure'' mathematics, and that's what makes it pure. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 13:50, 24 November 2008 (EST)