Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Dr.Toady One the Great.
He sounds like a seriously weird cartoon villain.

[Quantum Toast]

Dr.Toady One the Great.
He sounds like a seriously weird cartoon villain.

Hardly surprising when you consider the kinds of deathtraps derived from his invention.

[Rafal99]

Finally, let me thank my family, Ash, Alan, Martin, Julie, Cookie, the B12 Forum,
Tain, Melody, GiGi, Boris, Nareth, Romeo, Yoshi and Homer.

Yay!

In the acknowledgements, end of second paragraph:

I was surrounded by toads in the mountains. It was fantastic.

/mind blown

On the thesis is an image of The Great Toad and toads. The Great Toad is surrounded by the toads.

[Duke 2.0]

WHOOP

[Dakk]

Whoa, only 6 bibliographical references? I need at least 15 for my lawschool thesis, thankfuly I'm still 2 years and 8 months from graduating.

[Armok]

I don't know if I would call it "deep thinking". The connotation of deep thinking usually implies some sort of introspective or philosophical text, rather then mathematics. Perhaps "quantitative reasoning"  or "Analytical thought"?  Not sure if those would work particularly well...But anyways. Mathematics are the human representation of certain universal truths and laws, much like logic. Mathematicians, by extension, are not "creating" anything, but just figuring out how it all fits together; toying with the tinkertoys of the universal forces till the figure out how they fit together. Conversely Philosophers and the like are not truly interested in how or why the pieces fit, but more in what their purpose is and what our purpose in relationship to them is. As such "deep thinking" would usually connote a more nebulous guess which is incapable of proof or disproof, while mathematic theorizing is pretty much the exact opposite.

Least that how I see it...

As someone who knows quite a lot about philosophy, I can tell you this is not the case. MY point of view is that math and philosophy are two sides of the same coin, different angles of studying the same thing. At least GOOD philosophy is.
The best of both math and philosophy is were you cant quite determine which of the fields it belongs to (because it belongs to both), like Gödels incompleteness theorem.

[piecewise]

I don't know if I would call it "deep thinking". The connotation of deep thinking usually implies some sort of introspective or philosophical text, rather then mathematics. Perhaps "quantitative reasoning"  or "Analytical thought"?  Not sure if those would work particularly well...But anyways. Mathematics are the human representation of certain universal truths and laws, much like logic. Mathematicians, by extension, are not "creating" anything, but just figuring out how it all fits together; toying with the tinkertoys of the universal forces till the figure out how they fit together. Conversely Philosophers and the like are not truly interested in how or why the pieces fit, but more in what their purpose is and what our purpose in relationship to them is. As such "deep thinking" would usually connote a more nebulous guess which is incapable of proof or disproof, while mathematic theorizing is pretty much the exact opposite.

Least that how I see it...

As someone who knows quite a lot about philosophy, I can tell you this is not the case. MY point of view is that math and philosophy are two sides of the same coin, different angles of studying the same thing. At least GOOD philosophy is.
The best of both math and philosophy is were you cant quite determine which of the fields it belongs to (because it belongs to both), like Gödels incompleteness theorem.

I know what you're saying and agree to a point but I still don't see the mathematical connection with the eternal golden question of "what is my purpose?".  I'm talking about more the considerations of ethics, art, and society, not the overwrought word problems of formal logical systems which, in my experience, go so far into abstraction as to be something entirely unrelated.

Although I will admit that my experience with formal logic is based mostly on a few quizzical glances at the seeming math problems that a philosophy major friend had. Informal logic seems the most useful, while formal logic seems to be a sort of bare bones version of informal without any real subject matter, just logical equations. And while this formal logic can certainly help with arguments, its not quite as useful when dealing with subjective "soft" philosophical matters, such as the nature of good and evil. It can sure help in the arguments you may have to defend your position, but it can't really give you a position to defend.

[Intelligent Shade of Blue]

I'm pretty sure the "Philosophy" isn't a direct reference to what we think of as philosophy today, but rather a holdover from medieval times, when science was called "natural philosophy"... At least, that's what a cursory glance at the PHD page on wikipedia tells me.

edit: In any case, I'm pretty sure that ancient Greek philosophers also functioned as that society's scientists, which is probably where the medieval term comes from

[piecewise]

I'm pretty sure the "Philosophy" isn't a direct reference to what we think of as philosophy today, but rather a holdover from medieval times, when science was called "natural philosophy"... At least, that's what a cursory glance at the PHD page on wikipedia tells me.

edit: In any case, I'm pretty sure that ancient Greek philosophers also functioned as that society's scientists, which is probably where the medieval term comes from

The original post that started this was actually my musings on someone claiming that Math requires more "deep thought" then other things. I said that "deep thought" has the wrong connotations because it tends to be used on more philosophical matters while math requires something more akin to "analytical reasoning".

[Intelligent Shade of Blue]

Well, if you look at both philosophy and science at their basest levels, it's all about answering questions about the universe. Sure, one is much more meta than the other, but at the core, the idea is the same: how do we explain all this weird stuff? In that vein of thinking, I'm not sure I would rule deep thought as being the sole purview of philosophy.. surely you can think deeply about geology or astrophysics?

[piecewise]

Well, if you look at both philosophy and science at their basest levels, it's all about answering questions about the universe. Sure, one is much more meta than the other, but at the core, the idea is the same: how do we explain all this weird stuff? In that vein of thinking, I'm not sure I would rule deep thought as being the sole purview of philosophy.. surely you can think deeply about geology or astrophysics?

Obviously, but I was just talking about word connotation. When you think of someone with "deep thoughts" do you imagine someone thinking of things like ethics and morality or do you imagine someone trying to solve a math problem?

[rdwulfe]

All I know is I viewed the PDF file and was critically wounded by mathematical equations for about ten billion damage. >_<

Warn someone before you do that!

[Vattic]

Obviously, but I was just talking about word connotation. When you think of someone with "deep thoughts" do you imagine someone thinking of things like ethics and morality or do you imagine someone trying to solve a math problem?

Funnily enough deep thought makes me think of Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy which in turn leads us back to, admittedly bad, mathematics. Then I notice "Intelligent Shade of Blue" and wonder what the hell is going on?

[Andeerz]

I was surrounded by toads in the mountains. It was fantastic.

I want details!  :3

On the thesis is an image of The Great Toad and toads. The Great Toad is surrounded by the toads.

win.

[*Poster*]

Whoa, only 6 bibliographical references? I need at least 15 for my lawschool thesis, thankfuly I'm still 2 years and 8 months from graduating.

Jesus Christ, I need at least a dozen for any one of my regular 3000 word MA essays in Strategic Studies. I don't even want to think about how many I will need for my dissertation.