I read Jay's long post with some interest.
Not convinced about the speciousness of the pure/applied distinction. You
simply ask yourself why you are doing something. Are you doing the math to
find out more about math or are you doing the math to model
extra-mathematical properties and manipulate or find out more about
phenomena that exist independently of mathematics. I think the term "pure"
is somewhat biased . . . like pure math implies impure math (definitely an
anti-manual labor sentiment expressed there, o subtle ideology of class
distinctions), the hierarchy of sciences with Queen Math sitting at the top
of the pyramid? (archaeology at the bottom?)
More of interest to me is the answer to the question: "What makes
mathematics interesting to people who pursue it for its own sake?"
von Neumann wrote a good book for non-mathematicians on Godel's
"undecidability" paper called Godel's Proof. Quite a clever proof it was
too.
Thinking about Durkheim and Levi-Strauss on number as social representation.
Can't find my copy of "Elementary Forms of Religious Life" right now so am
unable to review the former.
Wondering how to tie Ilyenkov/activity theory into that classic sociological
problematic, the domain of math as a domain of ideality which is
fundamentally a representation of human activity at some level.
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:01:57 PST