Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!gamma!ulysses!thumper!faline!bellcore!clyde!mtunx!whuts!whutt!mls
From: mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Language illiteracy
Message-ID: <3151@whutt.UUCP>
Date: 2 May 88 14:21:57 GMT
References: <786@trwcsed.trwrb.UUCP> <8088@ames.arpa> <765@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24
Summary: not A language

In article <765@l.cc.purdue.edu>, cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> 
> An even bigger problem is that most people, including many mathematicians, are
> unable to see that mathematics is an absolutely essential language _if you are
> considering non-routine situations_.  

Herman,
	The whole trouble with your position in these debates is shown here.
Mathematics is a huge congeries of "languages" with practically every user
effectively inventing an idiolect.  Much of the flexibility of mathematical
usage is the freedom to change your whole syntax & semantics -- sometimes
even in the same paper!  If you tried to comprehend in ONE formal system*
the notation of differential geometry, algebraic varieties (schemes, say),
C*-algebras and (say) measure theory, NOBODY would be able to follow ANY
argument.  Specialization of language is essential, even in the informality
of mathematical work.
------
*	Note: Bourbaki in effect tried to create a uniform mathematical
style, even across different "languages".  The success was at best partial.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon
contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories
ihnp4!mhuxu!mls
standard disclaimer