User talk:SAKryukov: Difference between revisions

Line 577:

:::::::::::::::: So "mathematics" isn't the same as "number crunching". Interesting idea, but I suppose there's merit to that idea after all- especially if it turns out that the formula for deductive logic can be stated as something like A + A<sub>N</sub> → C with "A" being the additional argument, "A<sub>N</sub>" being the sum of any and all additional arguments, and "C" being the conclusion (an idea I've had floating around for a while now). --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: Well, it's not just this. I meant that in practice if you ~~doing~~ some mathematics, on a personal level you can distance yourself from any kinds of practical calculations. One of the driving forces is the elimination of all kinds of repetitive work and too concrete notions. Even the merit of mathematics is not just the calculation, even though the absolutely concrete solutions of practical problems is the major part of it. First of all, it gives a common language to the sciences. This way, it helps to unite the sciences. Remember, I mentioned "real" theoretical mechanics, as opposed to what engineers usually learn? Here, the popular physical paradigm "same equations => same solutions" works. Say, in Hamiltonian/Lagrangian formalism the objects are not necessarily mechanical objects. Simply put, you can assemble a thingy made of weights, springs, solenoids, resistors and capacitors and analyze it with a single common system of equations, which is totally agnostic to which part of it is "mechanical" and which one is "electrical". And this is exactly the same notion of "theoretical mechanics" relevant to the theory of music. You don't need to classify vibrations into mechanical, acoustical, electrical, or, say, hydrodynamical — they all can be composed in a single instrument, working together and not separated theoretically. I noticed some usual fallacy in some musical theorist I knew: they often consider the human ear as something separate from the musical instruments, a pure receptor device. But the correct approach is to consider the ear as the same kind of system as any musical instrument — working together. Well, I also know people who do understand that. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 05:08 UTC''

::::::::::::::::: Well, it's not just this. I meant that in practice if you do some mathematics, on a personal level you can distance yourself from any kinds of practical calculations. One of the driving forces is the elimination of all kinds of repetitive work and too concrete notions. Even the merit of mathematics is not just the calculation, even though the absolutely concrete solutions of practical problems is the major part of it. First of all, it gives a common language to the sciences. This way, it helps to unite the sciences. Remember, I mentioned "real" theoretical mechanics, as opposed to what engineers usually learn? Here, the popular physical paradigm "same equations => same solutions" works. Say, in Hamiltonian/Lagrangian formalism the objects are not necessarily mechanical objects. Simply put, you can assemble a thingy made of weights, springs, solenoids, resistors and capacitors and analyze it with a single common system of equations, which is totally agnostic to which part of it is "mechanical" and which one is "electrical". And this is exactly the same notion of "theoretical mechanics" relevant to the theory of music. You don't need to classify vibrations into mechanical, acoustical, electrical, or, say, hydrodynamical — they all can be composed in a single instrument, working together and not separated theoretically. I noticed some usual fallacy in some musical theorist I knew: they often consider the human ear as something separate from the musical instruments, a pure receptor device. But the correct approach is to consider the ear as the same kind of system as any musical instrument — working together. Well, I also know people who do understand that. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 05:08 UTC''

::::::::::::: Also, for years I thought that "weather" and "whether" is the same word, one word, and thought it was perfectly reasonable. I thought that the weather is so uncertain that nobody can know whether it can be good or not tomorrow, hence the same word in the language. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 03:07 UTC''

@@ Line 577: / Line 577: @@
 :::::::::::::::: So "mathematics" isn't the same as "number crunching".  Interesting idea, but I suppose there's merit to that idea after all- especially if it turns out that the formula for deductive logic can be stated as something like A + A<sub>N</sub> → C with "A" being the additional argument, "A<sub>N</sub>" being the sum of any and all additional arguments, and "C" being the conclusion (an idea I've had floating around for a while now). --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::::: Well, it's not just this. I meant that in practice if you doing some mathematics, on a personal level you can distance yourself from any kinds of practical calculations. One of the driving forces is the elimination of all kinds of repetitive work and too concrete notions. Even the merit of mathematics is not just the calculation, even though the absolutely concrete solutions of practical problems is the major part of it. First of all, it gives a common language to the sciences. This way, it helps to unite the sciences. Remember, I mentioned "real" theoretical mechanics, as opposed to what engineers usually learn? Here, the popular physical paradigm "same equations => same solutions" works. Say, in Hamiltonian/Lagrangian formalism the objects are not necessarily mechanical objects. Simply put, you can assemble a thingy made of weights, springs, solenoids, resistors and capacitors and analyze it with a single common system of equations, which is totally agnostic to which part of it is "mechanical" and which one is "electrical". And this is exactly the same notion of "theoretical mechanics" relevant to the theory of music. You don't need to classify vibrations into mechanical, acoustical, electrical, or, say, hydrodynamical — they all can be composed in a single instrument, working together and not separated theoretically. I noticed some usual fallacy in some musical theorist I knew: they often consider the human ear as something separate from the musical instruments, a pure receptor device. But the correct approach is to consider the ear as the same kind of system as any musical instrument — working together. Well, I also know people who do understand that. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;05:08&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::: Well, it's not just this. I meant that in practice if you do some mathematics, on a personal level you can distance yourself from any kinds of practical calculations. One of the driving forces is the elimination of all kinds of repetitive work and too concrete notions. Even the merit of mathematics is not just the calculation, even though the absolutely concrete solutions of practical problems is the major part of it. First of all, it gives a common language to the sciences. This way, it helps to unite the sciences. Remember, I mentioned "real" theoretical mechanics, as opposed to what engineers usually learn? Here, the popular physical paradigm "same equations => same solutions" works. Say, in Hamiltonian/Lagrangian formalism the objects are not necessarily mechanical objects. Simply put, you can assemble a thingy made of weights, springs, solenoids, resistors and capacitors and analyze it with a single common system of equations, which is totally agnostic to which part of it is "mechanical" and which one is "electrical". And this is exactly the same notion of "theoretical mechanics" relevant to the theory of music. You don't need to classify vibrations into mechanical, acoustical, electrical, or, say, hydrodynamical — they all can be composed in a single instrument, working together and not separated theoretically. I noticed some usual fallacy in some musical theorist I knew: they often consider the human ear as something separate from the musical instruments, a pure receptor device. But the correct approach is to consider the ear as the same kind of system as any musical instrument — working together. Well, I also know people who do understand that. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;05:08&nbsp;UTC''
 ::::::::::::: Also, for years I thought that "weather" and "whether" is the same word, one word, and thought it was perfectly reasonable. I thought that the weather is so uncertain that nobody can know whether it can be good or not tomorrow, hence the same word in the language. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;03:07&nbsp;UTC''