Posted: Oct 23, 2012 12:15 am
jamest wrote:The point I should just have made was this:
If other languages have to adapt in order to understand the mathematical significance inherent within the subjective meanings of, say, English, then how can mathematics be defined as an objective language within its right? Consider this question in relation to that which inspired me to start this thread:
Mathematics is a language reflective of thought, purposive of abbreviating said thought. If you're going to post the maths, I would require the corresponding language unto which it relates and abbreviates. That is, I will require a commentary of the maths so that I can understand what it is that you're trying to say.
Maths is an abbreviated form of the meanings inherent within any particular language. Since each language is subjectively unique, in what sense can we say that its maths are objective?
The 'language' of mathematics is of universal concepts. If a culture has discovered these universal concepts then they would have a linguistic adaptation to these concepts and would translate perfectly with other languages that have also adapted.
"=" would translate perfectly with another language with the same concept regardless of how it is represented or said. There are no nuances or deviations on 'equals'. Just as there are none for the number 1. 1 in English is going to mean exactly the same thing as 1 in French, Swahili or Alpha Centarian. Equals, times, set, true, false are all universal and will mean exactly the same thing.
Any thing described by these terms will mean exactly the same thing no matter what language it is spoken in.