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)

- 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. -Foxtrot 18:59, 23 November 2008 (EST)

- No, pure is opposite to applied. There are pure matheticians who use numerical calculations. 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. -Foxtrot 13:50, 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

- No, pure is opposite to applied. There are pure matheticians who use numerical calculations. RSchlafly 13:18, 24 November 2008 (EST)