Refutation of the \"Language-Only\" Interpretation of Math (The limitations of science)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, February 15, 2010, 19:34 (5393 days ago) @ xeno6696

xeno wrote: "I do hate that you dismiss pure math like that"-I don't dismiss pure maths only the infinitist type.-xeno: "99% of computer science both exists because of and relies upon many of these "fantasy objects."" -You won't find e or pi or root-2 in a computer anywhere, only approximations to them. If you blow up any computer graphics that appear to show circles, you will find that they are in fact polygons.
 
xeno: "Fibonacci relations by themselves are responsible for some of the best search algorithms"-That's probably quite correct, but it's finite maths, not analysis.-Stirling's numbers (of the second kind) count the number of ways of partitioning a set of n into k subsets. Bell numbers are the sum of these. But this again is finite maths.-I recommend the book "Concrete Mathematics" by Graham, Knuth and Patashnik.

--
GPJ