Actually a robot would probably do it the same way we do - trial and error with some kind of feedback loop. Solving differential equations tends not to work too well in controlling robots.
But is the feedback loop used by the robot maths? The computer code is, the formal structure of the loop is, a model of something using it is. The execution of the code, however, is not maths, AFAICS. Cheers On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 11:56:20AM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote: > Is catching/throwing a ball math? A robot would do these things using math. > But we don't, and we don't prove the result. We just check out the result > against reality. So why call it math? Or if you wouldn't call it math, how > does it differ from writing a program, which also produces a > result/product/effect. We may not treat that result as a mathematical > object. As with catching/throwing a ball, we often just check it out against > the reality of its use. > > -- Russ > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:48 AM, glen e. p. ropella > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > Thus spake Robert Holmes circa 10/01/2008 11:29 AM: > > > Is programming a mathematical formalism? No. I know that when I'm > > cranking > > > out Python scripts I am not doing any math. > > > > Just to be clear, programming is the _act_ of constructing a program. > > As an act, it is not a formalism. However, the program produced is a > > construct within a particular formalism. To boot, that formalism is a > > mathematical formalism. > > > > So, when you are programming, you are doing mathematics, even if you > > don't realize it. The same is true of the child counting on her > > fingers. She's doing mathematics even though she may not realize it. > > The same is true of the plumbing contractor when she _figures_ out how > > to lay pipe in a house. She's doing math, even though she may not > > realize it. > > > > Programming is (a form of) mathematics. > > > > But I don't want to give the impression that _everything_ is math. When > > we construct an actual/physical object, the object is not (necessarily) > > a construct within a particular formalism. So, when we build something, > > say, a chair, we may or may not be doing math. If we did all the > > figuring prior to the construction, then the construction phase isn't > > mathematics. If, however, we use the various pieces to measure the > > other pieces and figure things out during the construction process, then > > we're doing math. > > > > So, actions (and sensing) are not math. Of course, Guenther will > > probably pop back in and say that _if_ the entire universe is a > > mathematical formalism and all things in the universe are constructs in > > that formalism, then all actions and sensing are math, as well. But > > aside from that pathological ontological conclusion [grin], there are > > non-math things. > > > > I would also posit that general thought (not calculation or "figuring") > > may be non-mathematical. But I can't defend that position very well. > > > > -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
