Complexity

[Qdeathstar]

Which is more complex? Language or Math.

[acropolis]

math.

language could be but isn't.

or do you specifically mean math class vs. a language class?

[JammyJim]

language duh

maths is the universal language so presumably it fits into language anyway

!!!

[JammyJim]

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.

[Stew]

5 year olds can speak languages near fluently, they cant do calculus!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Which is more complex? Language or Math.

Language. Mathematics is based on much simpler rules, and there are no exceptions. (Ignoring repurcussions of GIT)

NQP.

[queball]

Complexity is subjective.

Originally Posted by Stew

5 year olds can speak languages near fluently, they cant do calculus!

Language (in that sense) is designed for five-year-olds. Computers can do calculus, they can't do language fluently.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Stew

5 year olds can speak languages near fluently, they cant do calculus!

They cant use the correct grammar or speak foreign languages though.

[Stew]

Git?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

And qbll is correct, but I'd go further and say the question was not only subjective but meaningless.

[Stew]

Most discussions on here are "meaningless" if you want to put it like that - because very little/anything productive ever results.

[Nodrog]

Maths is a language

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Stew

Most discussions on here are "meaningless" if you want to put it like that - because very little/anything productive ever results.

No, they're not. I think you're misunderstanding the concept of 'meaningless' in the context in which I used it. The implied usage was that the question cannot be interpreted in any way which would give a meaningful answer.

[pablissimo]

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?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

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?

My point exactly.

[pablissimo]

Paging Chomsky

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Paging Chomsky

Surely it would be better to use the all new Chomsignal, similar to the thing Batman uses?

[madi]

Originally Posted by JC

They cant use the correct grammar or speak foreign languages though.

how many five year olds do you know that speak foreign languages at all let alone using the correct grammer

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

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by madi

how many five year olds do you know that speak foreign languages at all let alone using the correct grammer

What do you mean by "foriegn" language? There are five year olds who are bilingual (to an extent), if that's what you mean.

But I'll agree with Que/MrL about the nature of the question.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

NQP.

k which is more brown: the letter L, or the number 74?

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by madi

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

Originally Posted by MrL

Language. Mathematics is based on much simpler rules, and there are no exceptions. (Ignoring repurcussions of GIT)

[JonnyBGood]

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!

[Structural Integrity]

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...

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

Maths is only bound to rules of logic.

There are "non-logical" rules as well. Your rules dont have to be 'logical' (though the application of them does), they can be pretty much arbitrary as long as they satisfy certain properties.

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

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.

All the valid sentences of a given natural language can be generated via recursive application of a finite ruleset. There are infinite possible sentences yes, but not infinite rules. There are also infinite possible sentences in maths! If by interpretation you mean that natural language sentences can have multiple semantic values whereas a mathematical theorem can only have one (which is 'objectively' defined) then that's true, but I wouldnt say it necessarily makes natural language more 'complex', only less precise. Perhaps you could theoretically create a logically perfect spoken language, in which sentences map 1 to 1 onto meanings and grammer is unambiguous (lol) would that language be less 'complex' than English?

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

One can describe the rules of maths with the rules of language.

Not accurately, since natural languages are inherantly ambiguous, which is why symbols are generally preferred to natural language descriptions when utmost precision is required.

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

One can only approximate the rules of language with the rules of maths.

Huh? The rules of language can be represented exactly using a suitably sophisticated symbolic logic. If your statement was correct it would be impossible a priori for a computer to ever pass a Turing test, which I dont think is even remotely close to being true.


Anyway, a precise description of complexity would most likely be inherantly mathematical, so the question is a bit silly.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Language. Mathematics is based on much simpler rules

Simpler to whom? An idiot savant?

[Deciduous]

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.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Simpler to whom? An idiot savant?

This is part of the problem with the question, as there is no system of comparison between the two aptitudes.

However, differentiation (for example) is much simpler than (say) genundival attraction. a + b = b + a is simpler than declining the verb To Be.

[Qdeathstar]

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.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Complexity has an objective definition...

Yes, sorry, I was trying to be humourous, but I guess nothing's clear-cut.

[Qdeathstar]

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.

[Qdeathstar]

queball, my anger is directed at JrL

[Qdeathstar]

Mrl or whatever his naem is..

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

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.

I could have a discussion about the effect on Fly Fishing Technique when measuring the energy output of stars.

Doesn't make it meaningful.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

You can compare the two. Things dont have to be analogous for you to compare. You can easily compare apples to oranges.

Just because you can compare the two doesn't make the comparison meaningful.

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)

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Complexity has an objective definition, so if your wonding the meaning (as if it could be subjective) look at the definition.

Complexity is a word meaning (to quote the most apt definition at dictionary.com) 'The quality or condition of being complex.' Of course, this then leads us onto the definition of 'complex', which the same site informs us is 'Involved or intricate, as in structure; complicated.' This doesn't actually tell us much about what we're supposed to be doing.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

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.

But 'more to it' in what sense? At any point in time, there is a finite amount of language and a finite amount of mathematics. In what sense should we apply the definition 'more of it'? Absolute amounts? That's telling us how much there is, not how complex it is. Variation from set rules? As I said above, it's the only way I can think of of one being more complex than the other, and even then that's not really complexity.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

As far as this thread having a purpose.. what may i ask did the TFD thread... or your postings try to accomplish.

The TFD thread was an attempt by dutch people to break the boards.

I post here in order that you may, by osmosis, receive greater wisdom and height.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

B/s the greatest minds on earth are the ones who ask questions.

Personally, I think people who can answer questions are the greatest minds on earth.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

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.

I am well aware that it can't be answered objectively. Being unable to answer something objectively is a world away from being meaningless, however, although the two often overlap.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

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.

Proof please.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

And language grows at an expodential growth rate- compared to the growth rate of math.

'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.

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.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

The means that even IF the complexity of language is a four and the complexity of math is a twenty

How can you even apply NUMBERS to this question?

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

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)

I've no idea what this means. However, you're also assuming things that are incorrect. Look (for example) at the even numbers compared to ALL numbers. There's fewer even numbers than ALL numbers (even numbers are after all restricted by a rule), but the even numbers are infinite too.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

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.

Just because something is universal doesn't mean it's more or less complex.

And I've no idea where the 'carbon, Nitrogen, sulfer, and the element oxigen' bit comes in.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by acropolis

k which is more brown: the letter L, or the number 74?

Phil the Tree.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The TFD thread was an attempt by dutch people to break the boards.

No, it wasn't. The TFD thread was, in fact, completely useless, from an objective point of view. That it broke the boards and occasionally strained them to their limits was just a side effect.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Leshy

No, it wasn't. The TFD thread was, in fact, completely useless, from an objective point of view.

It had the goal of furthering communication in a more efficient method, did it not?

Is that not an objective result?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It had the goal of furthering communication in a more efficient method, did it not?

It had the goal of adding communication about a variety of unrelated topics in a fairly inaccessible language to the forums, and to bring enjoyment to a select group of individuals. From an objective viewpoint, it was in fact, relatively useless to the forums as a whole.

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.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Leshy

It had the goal of adding communication about a variety of unrelated topics in a fairly inaccessible language to the forums, and to bring enjoyment to a select group of individuals. From an objective viewpoint, it was in fact, relatively useless to the forums as a whole.

Relative to what though? What is the 'point' of the forums?

[edit]

And what's a 'black** box'?

[Leshy]

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

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Leshy

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.

This is of course all irrelevent to the thread (TFD that is, it has been since it was first mentioned).

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.

Originally Posted by Leshy

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

You're talking to someone eating chicken kievs and drinking guinness.

Diet is not an option.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

This is of course all irrelevent to the thread (TFD that is, it has been since it was first mentioned).

Well, I don't feel the TFD thread in that regard added to the goals of the forums. One might say that it worked counterproductive, as the thread was often copied, led to several "riots" and has been the topic of many heated debates. One might of course say that it, as such, did keep an interest in the forums going from both posters and administrators.

Of course, things being good for the game is different from something being good for the boards.

I'm not saying that they are the same thing. But in general, forums attached to a game or a product site are simply meant to keep users at the game/product's site, in order to increase sales.

You're talking to someone eating chicken kievs and drinking guinness.

Diet is not an option.

At least have the decency to stick your feet outside the box then.

[Ebany]

I'm sure chicken kiev (JUST chicken Kiev) doesnt make a balanced meal.

Even with the guinness.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Leshy

I'm not saying that they are the same thing. But in general, forums attached to a game or a product site are simply meant to keep users at the game/product's site, in order to increase sales.

PA is a more community based game, so it lives by different rules. (Not disagreeing, adding)

Originally Posted by Leshy

At least have the decency to stick your feet outside the box then.

I'll have to, unless the box is over 2m long.

[Ebany]

You could stick your head out. That might make it more pleasant for you...

[Qdeathstar]

I could have a discussion about the effect on Fly Fishing Technique when measuring the energy output of stars.

And that also, has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about, especially since im Comparing to things, and your measuring the effect of something that has no effect on what your measuring. Completely differene
Doesn't make it meaningful.

Just because you can compare the two doesn't make the comparison meaningful.

Like i said, i thought it was meaning full, and judging by the number of responced, id say it was. Additionally, as ive said, im here to please me, not you.

"Complexity is a word meaning (to quote the most apt definition at dictionary.com) 'The quality or condition of being complex.' Of course, this then leads us onto the definition of 'complex', which the same site informs us is 'Involved or intricate, as in structure; complicated.' This doesn't actually tell us much about what we're supposed to be doing."

Dictionary.com is about the worste place to get a good defenition from.

"But 'more to it' in what sense? At any point in time, there is a finite amount of language and a finite amount of mathematics. In what sense should we apply the definition 'more of it'? Absolute amounts? That's telling us how much there is, not how complex it is. Variation from set rules? As I said above, it's the only way I can think of of one being more complex than the other, and even then that's not really complexity."

But we arent discussing a point in time are we? No... were not. We are discussing the complexity of Mathematics and Language. Mathematics has a finite amount of information, while language, by its very nature has infinit possibilites and pasts. As i have said before.. but you have totally ignored, selective reading i suppose, That not only is is more (in the amount since) language, but also there is complexity in terms of its rules because accross languages and accross times, the amount of language has and will continue to increase, and the rules for language will change (and thus add to its complexity, by adding to and modify the number of rules before the changed rules), however, the rules, and substance of mathematics is finite, and its rules will not change. 1+1 will always equall 2, 3x3 will always be nine...

The TFD thread was an attempt by dutch people to break the boards.

I post here in order that you may, by osmosis, receive greater wisdom and height.

I believe your first statement has already been wronged by leshy.. and secondly... other that increasing my debating skills.. (perhaps, by teaching me to use big words and cliche' sayings which mean nothign, and attacking a sentence, instead of a whole argument. ah nevermind.. thats not good debating. So no.. sry. :-/ Havent gaind much wisdom...

Personally, I think people who can answer questions are the greatest minds on earth.

Without questions, we wouldnt have answers. You need to ask the question before you can answer it.

I am well aware that it can't be answered objectively. Being unable to answer something objectively is a world away from being meaningless, however, although the two often overlap.

Then dont go on about subjectivness/objectiveness...plz

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.

How can you even apply NUMBERS to this question?

Its units of complexity dear.

As far as for the rest of it.. your just rehashing what you uv already said..no need to comment on that.

[Dante Hicks]

This is a really stupid discussion, even by the established standards.

[Qdeathstar]

then go away, and dont respond. unless, ofc your trying to troll.

[Ebany]

Well given Qdeathstar seems to be determinedly developing a new language all of his own, in his case language is clearly more complex.

[Qdeathstar]

thats the best argument ive heard all day....

[Qdeathstar]

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 :-/

[Ebany]

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.