1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + +
Talk:Pure mathematics (view source)
Revision as of 18:18, November 24, 2008
, 18:18, November 24, 2008No, pure is opposite to applied
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)