Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!botter!star.cs.vu.nl!biep From: biep@cs.vu.nl (J A Biep Durieux) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.math,comp.software-eng Subject: Is math certain? (Was: Rhetoric and Software Engineering) Keywords: arts, maths, science and engineering Message-ID: <2670@ski.cs.vu.nl> Date: 31 May 89 08:54:16 GMT References: <1886@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> <5315@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> <155@marvin.moncam.co.uk> <734@ecrcvax.UUCP> Reply-To: biep@cs.vu.nl (J A Biep Durieux) Followup-To: sci.philosophy.tech Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam Lines: 30 Xref: utzoo sci.philosophy.tech:1178 sci.math:6846 comp.software-eng:1593 In article , emuleomo@yes.rutgers.edu (Emuleomo) writes: > Wonders will never cease! How can you include COMPUTER SCIENCE in > humanities when this discipline evolved from the math and EE depts.?? In article <155@marvin.moncam.co.uk> paul@moncam.co.uk (Paul Hudson) writes: >Over here several places put maths in the "arts" side of the fence. In article <734@ecrcvax.UUCP> periklis@ecrcvax.UUCP (Periklis Tsahageas) writes: >I will argue that, actually, there are two fences. >Mathematics can not be considered an art since arts, by definition, lack the >most basic foundation of maths : formalism. (...) You must be a Hilbertian, I guess >Two historians can argue forever about a theory, while I do not know anything >that would make two mathematicians disagree. (...) Ever read about e.g. the debate between Brouwer and Hilbert? >The fundamental distinction between a mathematician and a scientist is that, >while the latter's creations (theories) are valid as long as they are not >disproven, the former's are, in a sense, perfect and eternal. >This is, for me, the beauty of maths. -- Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax) Who am I to doubt the existence of God? I am only a simple man, I already have trouble enough doubting the existence of my neighbour!