Wonderful tribute to “Maestro Bogomolny”, who taught us all so much here with his tweets and riddles at @CutTheKnotMath, from his friend @nntaleb https://t.co/gMYrgea3jB
— Steven Strogatz (@stevenstrogatz) November 22, 2020
Showing posts with label mathematics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mathematics. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 24, 2020
Alexander Bogomolny
Friday, November 13, 2020
Insights and Manipulations by Harvey Flaumenhaft
This is unbelievably exciting. If you are already excited about Apollonius of Perga, buy this book. If you aren't ... well, GET EXCITED! https://t.co/UAT5s6LhLA
— Zena Hitz (@zenahitz) November 9, 2020
St. Augustine's Press
Monday, June 22, 2020
Thomas Royen
News from 2017: Retired German man solves one of world's most complex maths problem with 'simple proof'
Thomas Royen found the solution at the age of 67 while brushing his teeth
Thomas Royen found the solution at the age of 67 while brushing his teeth
Not only is this important, but it proves many our truths are learned by a form of induction, what can be termed a gift from God. https://t.co/4bhuYtxm6K
— Staff Sergeant Briggs (@FamedCelebrity) June 21, 2020
Monday, April 13, 2020
Friday, September 26, 2014
Friday, February 21, 2014
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
More math...
The sameness of organisms, cities, and corporations: Q&A with Geoffrey West
Evidence of natural law and natural limits? I am doubting it.
Geoffrey West: The surprising math of cities and corporations
Evidence of natural law and natural limits? I am doubting it.
Geoffrey West: The surprising math of cities and corporations
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Reductionism in contemporary science
I wanted to append one more thought to my most recent post dealing with Stephen Barr -- I'd have to look this up, but it seems to me that if Aristotelian-Thomists allege that contemporary science/scientists neglect formal causes it is done in conjunction with the claim that they affirm that complex entitites can be understood completely through their parts -- their material causes. This is most obvious when they attempt mathematical descriptions and other forms of modelling of complex entities. If they talk about causes which might be deemed formal, then, they are doing so with regards to the parts and not to the whole.
No one can give an explanation of things without giving formal causes -- but what happens is that a committed reductionist who is trying to do good science will end up contradicting his philosophical beliefs.
Edit. I was notified that someone had left a comment, but apparently it has been deleted? I was going to say in response that the common judgment of Aristotelian-Thomists that modern physics is subalternated to physics, this would seem accurate with respect to Newtonian physics or celestial mechanics, but is it an adequate characterization of contemporary physics as it is understood by its practitioners? They may be confusing some beings of reason with real beings, but this may not be true of every cause they posit?
I think I had an actual copy of this book somewhere: Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy of measure and the international system of units (SI) by Charles B. Crowley and Peter A. Redpath
No one can give an explanation of things without giving formal causes -- but what happens is that a committed reductionist who is trying to do good science will end up contradicting his philosophical beliefs.
Edit. I was notified that someone had left a comment, but apparently it has been deleted? I was going to say in response that the common judgment of Aristotelian-Thomists that modern physics is subalternated to physics, this would seem accurate with respect to Newtonian physics or celestial mechanics, but is it an adequate characterization of contemporary physics as it is understood by its practitioners? They may be confusing some beings of reason with real beings, but this may not be true of every cause they posit?
I think I had an actual copy of this book somewhere: Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy of measure and the international system of units (SI) by Charles B. Crowley and Peter A. Redpath
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Algebra
I remember a discussion of algebra (which included a brief mention of calculus) in a class with Dr. Andres. (The class covered part of St. Thomas' commentary on the De Trinitate? As for the actual name of the course... I'd have to look it up on the transcript.) Dr. Andres did not think it was math, since it did not involve actual quantity. I offered the opinion that it was a study of rules concerning operations or calculation. I think that now I would say that it is more like the study of the "logic" of calculations, though for many it does not go to this level, as it is just memorization. Hence, it can seem like it is a study of the rules of calculation. The reasoning behind the calculation is obscured or ignored while we do the operations in order to get results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)