| > you are just the type of person who will defend roman numerals. In the face of what? No system for writing numbers? Sure. Arabic numerals? No way, they're far superior to Roman ones. > Almost the entirety of calculus was derived from problems related to physics. No it is not. It is/was largely motivated by problems in physics. One may obtain a lot of intuition about calculus from physical intuition, but one does not obtain calculus from it. > Volumes were calculated for doing engineering. Yes. And? > Mathematics != Thinking. I don't see anyone in this thread claiming that. > The last time I checked both logic and critical thinking were branches of philosophy. I thought we were talking about math? > All good mathematicians are physicists or engineers. This is patently not true. Tell me how many Abel prize winners of Fields medalists are physicists or engineers. There are indeed some, but they are a minority – your claim is absurd. > Heck some even learnt maths on their own. Absolutely. Can you elaborate on how this is relevant? > All mediocre mathematicians write textbooks and hide behind notations. What are you on about? As a mediocre mathematician myself, I must admit I have never written a textbook. > Most abstract mathematics is like the definition of protocols/interfaces and other platonic garbage. You have made it abundantly clear that you haven't that slightest grasp of abstract mathematics. Would you at least humor me as to provide a few examples? |