Complexity
Which is more complex? Language or Math.
|
Re: Complexity
math.
language could be but isn't. or do you specifically mean math class vs. a language class? |
Re: Complexity
language duh
maths is the universal language so presumably it fits into language anyway !!! |
Re: Complexity
id argue language is tbh. its complexities within english alone are quite amazing.
that doesnt even include all the other hundreds of languages spoken throughout the world. |
Re: Complexity
5 year olds can speak languages near fluently, they cant do calculus!
|
Re: Complexity
Quote:
NQP. |
Re: Complexity
Complexity is subjective.
Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
Git?
|
Re: Complexity
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
And qbll is correct, but I'd go further and say the question was not only subjective but meaningless. |
Re: Complexity
Most discussions on here are "meaningless" if you want to put it like that - because very little/anything productive ever results.
|
Re: Complexity
Maths is a language :confused:
|
Re: Complexity
Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
What the hell is this thread about? Is it harder learning a language than learning maths, or is maths objectively less 'involved' than language, or what?
|
Re: Complexity
Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
Paging Chomsky
|
Re: Complexity
Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
Quote:
i did teach my brother about alegra when he 6 year old having previously taught him arithmetic didnt try teaching him correct grammer or french though so perhaps it is a bad example |
Re: Complexity
Quote:
But I'll agree with Que/MrL about the nature of the question. |
Re: Complexity
Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
Everything is objective and I say language because I can never understand anything said when I'm drunk. However neither can I understand differential calculus when I'm drunk.
Damn conundrums. Someone get me the captain's powder! |
Re: Complexity
Language is more complex.
Maths is only bound to rules of logic. Which is a limitted set of rules. while language is more bound to rules of "interpretation" and context (I'm sure there is a better word for it, but it fails me now), which is an infinite set of rules because it depends on more factors than only in the formula. One can describe the rules of maths with the rules of language. One can only approximate the rules of language with the rules of maths. Or something along those lines... |
Re: Complexity
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, a precise description of complexity would most likely be inherantly mathematical, so the question is a bit silly. Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
And next week on Complexity, crystal formation vs. a dog taking a shit
And yeah, maths could adequately describe the syntax of natural language but probably not the semantics. Describing empathy mathematically might pose a problem, but I'm not entirely sure I'm on the right track here. |
Re: Complexity
Quote:
However, differentiation (for example) is much simpler than (say) genundival attraction. a + b = b + a is simpler than declining the verb To Be. |
Re: Complexity
Well, MrL... the question was meaningful to me, and thats who im here to please, me, not you, because me and several of my freinds had quite a discussion about it. You can compare the two. Things dont have to be analogous for you to compare. You can easily compare apples to oranges.
Complexity has an objective definition, so if your wonding the meaning (as if it could be subjective) look at the definition. In this case, im not talking about the "effect" of something. Just rather or not it is more complex, that there is "more to it" than the other. And that it is harder to learn. The last part may, by its very nature be subjective, but its not a major entity of the question. As far as this thread having a purpose.. what may i ask did the TFD thread... or your postings try to accomplish. Amen. |
Re: Complexity
Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
B/s the greatest minds on earth are the ones who ask questions. Sadly, the smartest people arent the ones who say, its a dumb question because it cant be answered objectively. VERY VERY few things can be answerd objectively and most are answered subjectivly.
My answer to this question is that language is vastly more complex than math. The reason for this is that math, no mater what we know, or dont know yet, has a fix-certain-amount of things to it. Once you figure them out, there are no more (not to suggest we have found everything) On the other hand, Language has always changed, from the begging of man to the present, and will continue to change. And language grows at an expodential growth rate- compared to the growth rate of math. The means that even IF the complexity of language is a four and the complexity of math is a twenty, because math has a logrithmic, or even static growth rate, language will over come math in complexity becuase language never ceases to exist (although we may not use it, it was still there) and will continue to grow and expand into new languages. In addition although there is a certain number of rules about math (if there wasnt, physics would not function the way it does, at a constant rate) while there are no certain number of languages and there is no limit to the ammount of languages ever. In addition to this, being that the universe made primarily of the things needed to create life (carbon, Nitrogen, sulfer, and the element oxigen., but not in its free form, we have to accept that there MAY be other species wither there own language. However, because math works the same and is the UNIVERSAL language, it is constant. Meaning that while an alien speicies may have a thousand different languages there still is only one math. 1 plus 1 still equals 2... and so one. |
Re: Complexity
queball, my anger is directed at JrL
|
Re: Complexity
Mrl or whatever his naem is..
|
Re: Complexity
Quote:
Doesn't make it meaningful. Quote:
Oh, and I know you can compare apples and oranges. I've seen a paper entitled 'Apples and Oranges: A Spectrographic Comparions' (AIR is great) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I post here in order that you may, by osmosis, receive greater wisdom and height. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you use a McLaurin series to calculate pi, it's growing at an ever decreasing rate, yet if you use something similar to calculate (say) 2^x then it will grow much faster, and yet be less complex. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And I've no idea where the 'carbon, Nitrogen, sulfer, and the element oxigen' bit comes in. |
Re: Complexity
Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
Quote:
Is that not an objective result? |
Re: Complexity
Quote:
The only reason many people were in favour of it, was it's longevity. The thread being there was a tradition, and it was by very far the largest thread on this forum. Add mysticism surrounding the thread because it's contents were of a different language and as such fairly obscure, and you've got pretty much similar reasons as to why buildings get selected to be monuments, whether they serve an active function or not. |
Re: Complexity
Quote:
[edit] And what's a 'black** box'? |
Re: Complexity
The forums allow for a multitude of users to hold conversations about various topics, and to serve as a community basis for the game of Planetarion. An interest in the forums generally keeps the people close to the game, which is good for sales. Well, in most cases, anyway.
I have no idea what a black** box is. I'm hoping the asterisks indicate that it is extra large, or you're gonna have to go on a diet :( |
Re: Complexity
Quote:
That aside, I'd say that a consistent ongoing active element of posters would be good for the boards. Of course, things being good for the game is different from something being good for the boards. Quote:
Diet is not an option. |
Re: Complexity
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
I'm sure chicken kiev (JUST chicken Kiev) doesnt make a balanced meal.
Even with the guinness. |
Re: Complexity
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Complexity
You could stick your head out. That might make it more pleasant for you...
|
Re: Complexity
Quote:
Doesn't make it meaningful. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The prove that mathematics has certain restrictions is physics. For physics to work, math has to remain at a constant. "'Exponential', by the way. There must be some irony in misspelling a mathematical word whilst declaring that it is simpler. Furthermore, just because something grows faster doesn't mean it's more complex." Spelling isnt a big deal, especially on forums. not that i didnt know how to spell it. There is no irony in misspelling it because Exponential is simply the english word we use to define a mathematical event. Math, in its strictest sence, deals with numbers and variables and signs. Quote:
As far as for the rest of it.. your just rehashing what you uv already said..no need to comment on that. |
Re: Complexity
This is a really stupid discussion, even by the established standards.
|
Re: Complexity
then go away, and dont respond. unless, ofc your trying to troll.
|
Re: Complexity
Well given Qdeathstar seems to be determinedly developing a new language all of his own, in his case language is clearly more complex.
|
Re: Complexity
thats the best argument ive heard all day....
|
Re: Complexity
although i do wonder how im greating a new language..aside from missing punctuation and a bit of spelling... in my opinion that doesnt count :-/
|
Re: Complexity
Plus I would say your repeated statements that Maths is finite is impossible to prove. Many times people have felt we have found the answer to many things in science only to find later under further inspection there is more to things. To state there is a finite limit to a form of thought is a very sweeping statement. While I will agree that numbers are numbers are numbers, the relationships between them provide infinite areas for discovery of further complexity.
And as for asking questions before they can be answered, they dont actually advance us much till we have the answers though. Though I will agree the questions themselves may lead us to new areas of research. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:55. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018