Philosophy Now Forum

What is math really expressing in its language?

I will use the example of percentage to make my point. Other examples exist in statistics and other branches of mathematics.

Let's say during a certain year, someone's income jumps 5% (person A) while another person (person B) goes up by 2%. Now during that year, A's household expense goes up by 2% while B's household expense goes up by 5%. So apparently A did better than B financially that year.

Now let's take a closer look at this situation. Say that A started off the year (based on the prior year) with an annual income of $100,000 so for him a 5% increase would mean an increase in income of $5,000 while for B, his 2% increase means a jump of $20,000 in his annual income. With the annual household expense, if A's was $20,000, then it jumped by $400 while B's household expense of $7,500 jumped by $375.

If you're a congressperson voting on a tax bill, you have to look past the percentage to get a truer picture of the financials. So do you think we can come up with a better math language that is more expressive?

PhilX

That is not an example of the poverty of mathematical language; rather, it is an example of a poor choice of mathematical expression. It is the reason we need to be good mathematicians (which requires we be taught maths well in schools); so that we don't express our ideas so badly.

It means an American is speaking.

Your maths is right, interpretation in politics well...

If you're a congressperson voting on a tax bill, you have to look past the percentage to get a truer picture of the financials. So do you think we can come up with a better math language that is more expressive?

Do you think we can find an honest politician?

Anyway it means what it means as given the axioms to which it is understood people will conform to, at the moment that axiom is ZFT, if that changes it might be something more involved less involved or even a new paradigm in maths, what it wont be is more than what it means.

Let's use an example:

the integral of x^2 is according to set and number theory meaning that x is a variable and ^2 means squared. What it never means is something else.

So if we take x^2 as meaning a variable number which could be of the real numbers, integers, or whatever we have defined a number to be but for simplicity let's say it is 1,2,3... or fractions there of or decimals there of.

We agree that to use that piece of information we must agree to rules, let's say the rules are ZFT AKA Zemello-Fraenkel set theory.

Now if we agree to that axiom we can begin. If we can't then we have no common ground to begin.

so let's say x^2 the integral in calculus has a rule to determine it in all cases of x, how might we find it?

I of course am aware the number ninety does not exist, but let's just say it might for arguments sake.

That said of course:

"There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics." Mark Twain.

mickthinks wrote:That is not an example of the poverty of mathematical language; rather, it is an example of a poor choice of mathematical expression. It is the reason we need to be good mathematicians (which requires we be taught maths well in schools); so that we don't express our ideas so badly.

QFT.