Greetings Economists, I'm sorry out for the day doing the usual routine. Didn't expect to draw this much interest. On Jul 1, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Gar Lipow wrote:
Look up the difference betwee "natural" and "artificial" languages - "natural" being used even more problematically than usual; but that seems to be the standard term. (In other words "natural" in this sense is a technical term, and does not mean the same as in standard English.)
Doyle; Gar I think is more representative of the error than Ravi. Ravi immediately admits to my point. Ravi writes; I used language in the trivial sense of a way to communicate and codify using symbols. If you can supply me with a better term I will gladly adopt it, since I agree with you that math is indeed not a language. Doyle; I have read Les' query here; Les Schaffer writes; Doyle: can you expand on this? i do not get your point about math not being a language. i can sort of see it, but I'm not there yet. Doyle; I will get to Ravi's main response after I deal with Gar's contention above. Gar do you use math language like or is the word 'language' a convenience label for a kind of mathematical work? Standard terms for a kind of math tool doesn't make the tool a language in any sense human languages are. It is quite clear no one yet can program a computer to solve the primitive conditions of a Turing Test. However once you buy the parallel then you gain a confusion about what's what as long as you don't consider the consequences of conflating language with mathematical tools. Hence with computing it becomes a confusion what does what and what exactly computing does. That means that building computational engine to take on 'language like' information work is clotted with confusions about the work process. Les I expect my statement above to Gar possibly clarifies my assertion. I think one could make an adequate technical representation of the argument. Ravi writes; ...That which scientists do... Doyle; It occurs to me if you use language-is-math this way you don't know what scientists do. Now I would guess that's not what is written in stone. You are too smart to pin your analysis on that claim. Never the less I would take your subsequent comment; Ravi writes; I do not believe that my lax identification of math as a language is central to my argument, Doyle; To mean your argument says scientists do so and so. But if your original point is a fallacy then your ability to adequately describe scientific work is flawed from the start. thanks, Doyle
