Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pure mathematics"
From Conservapedia
(disagree) |
(It is considered "pure" because ...) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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) | ||
Revision as of 23:39, November 23, 2008
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. 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. -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. RSchlafly 18:39, 23 November 2008 (EST)
