Mr_Anony:
Lol, drawing more imaginary dividing lines are we? Why don't you tell us precisely what the difference is.

See the liar?


Who drew an imaginary line? Mathematics and Philosophy are taught as separate fields in schools. That is not imaginary. I also acknowledge that they intersect because of the logic equations- there is a philosophy of maths. Very sound argument to show that they are separate but intersecting.


Now, you claim that maths is a subset of philosophy with no evidence or logical argument. How is your subset not an imaginary line?

Anonyism

Logicboy03:


See the liar?


Who drew an imaginary line? Mathematics and Philosophy are taught as separate fields in schools. That is not imaginary. I also acknowledge that they intersect because of the logic equations- there is a philosophy of maths. Very sound argument to show that they are separate but intersecting.


Now, you claim that maths is a subset of philosophy with no evidence or logical argument. How is your subset not an imaginary line?

Anonyism

Ol boy there is no point arguing this point with you. It is unlikely to be worthwhile.

So enjoy.

Deep Sight:

Ol boy there is no point arguing this point with you. It is unlikely to be worthwhile.

So enjoy.

I love you menn. Your escape tactics are even more sophisticated than Anony's anonyism


When debunked into a corner, you covertly claim that the whole argument is pointless or that it flies over my head.


DeepSightism (Although, it is not as orally/aesthetically pleasing like "Anonyism"

Mr_Anony:
Lol, drawing more imaginary dividing lines are we? Why don't you tell us precisely what the difference is.

Mathematics deal with real numbers and their relationships. Philosophy, on the other hand , deal deal with speculations about existence. Philosophy is primarily speculative. Philosophy does not deal with real tangibles.

A mathematician may be a philosopher, but a philosopher is not a mathematician.

during the rannaisance period, when knowledge was seen as whole and not fragmented into branches the way it exists today, philosophers and other seekers of knowledge acquainted themselves with all branches of knowledge in an attempt to understand and explain existence.

So typically, a philosopher would also have an interest in astronomy, theology, geometry and other branches of mathematics.

plaetton:

Mathematics deal with real numbers and their relationships. Philosophy, on the other hand , deal deal with speculations about existence. Philosophy is primarily speculative. Philosophy does not deal with real tangibles.

A mathematician may be a philosopher, but a philosopher is not a mathematician.

during the rannaisance period, when knowledge was seen as whole and not fragmented into branches the way it exists today, philosophers and other seekers of knowledge acquainted themselves with all branches of knowledge in an attempt to understand and explain existence.

So typically, a philosopher would also have an interest in astronomy, theology, geometry and other branches of mathematics.

To put it very simply; a philosopher is a thinker or a seeker of knowledge, it is the method by which he seeks that knowledge and the subject he focuses on that may now define him as a scientist, existentialist, mathematician, theologian, political theorist e.t.c. Saying that philosophy is "primarily speculative and does not deal with real tangibles" is inaccurate and misleading.

You even made my point for me by admitting that in the past, knowledge was not fragmented as it is today; wouldn't this therefore imply that the 'fragments' are therefore subsets of the whole? Interestingly also you mentioned Pythagoras who is perhaps the most prominent philosopher mathematician of ancient antiquity.

The bold goes further to strengthen the point I'm making which is that mathematics is a subset of philosophy as chemistry is to science compare your statement with this

A chemist may be a scientist but a scientist is not a chemist

Hopefully you get my point now.

Deep Sight:

Ol boy there is no point arguing this point with you. It is unlikely to be worthwhile.

So enjoy.

Sometimes you just read his posts and shake your head. It is really not worth the effort. A shaking of the head will suffice.

Mr_Anony:
To put it very simply; a philosopher is a thinker or a seeker of knowledge, it is the method by which he seeks that knowledge and the subject he focuses on that may now define him as a scientist, existentialist, mathematician, theologian, political theorist e.t.c. Saying that philosophy is "primarily speculative and does not deal with real tangibles" is inaccurate and misleading.

You even made my point for me by admitting that in the past, knowledge was not fragmented as it is today; wouldn't this therefore imply that the 'fragments' are therefore subsets of the whole? Interestingly also you mentioned Pythagoras who is perhaps the most prominent philosopher mathematician of ancient antiquity.

The bold goes further to strengthen the point I'm making which is that mathematics is a subset of philosophy as chemistry is to science compare your statement with this

A chemist may be a scientist but a scientist is not a chemist



Hopefully you get my point now.

Again, using inapplicable analogies rather than using a logical argument to explain why mathematics is a subset of philosophy?


Your argument has K-leg. Are you now saying that every area of knowledge is a subset of philosophy (with reference to your 1st paragraph)?


Also, you argument for knowledge not being fragmented in the past is quite fallacious. Why? Because knowledge was much more entwined due to ignorance in the past and not for a logical reason. There was no dividing line between science and claims of sorcery then.

Mr_Anony:
Sometimes you just read his posts and shake your head. It is really not worth the effort. A shaking of the head will suffice.

Anonyism meets DeepSightism



I love you guys

Logicboy03:
Again, using inapplicable analogies rather than using a logical argument to explain why mathematics is a subset of philosophy?

Lol, "inapplicable analogies" he said.

Your argument has K-leg. Are you now saying that every area of knowledge is a subset of philosophy (with reference to your 1st paragraph)?

Nope that is a misstatement. I am saying that philosophy is the love of knowledge and the seeking of it. To be more clearer, A person who studies architecture so that he can build a house is an architect but is merely a technician laying brick upon brick and churning out houses. The person who not only builds a house but goes on to study the details and implications of buildings such that he comes up with architecture theories and methods is more than an architect, he is a philosopher.
Bearing this in mind, no one studies mathematics just to do sums rather nearly every mathematician studies math so that they can examine it in detail as to how it explains reality and they try to come up and advance it with theories that may be applied to life and nature and help explain things. Yes they are philosophers. Mathematics itself is a pure form of logic.

Also, you argument for knowledge not being fragmented in the past is quite fallacious. Why? Because knowledge was much more entwined due to ignorance in the past and not for a logical reason. There was no dividing line between science and claims of sorcery then.

The argument of unfragmented knowledge was not mine but plaetton's I just adapted it to show him that fragments make up a whole. Also there is a difference between discarding and dividing. Science did not fragment or branch out into science and sorcery. Science discarded sorcery completely as an explanation. You have thrown in an irrelevant strawman as usual.

Logicboy03:


Anonyism meets DeepSightism



I love you guys

Logicboyism: The ad hominen of adding an "-ism" suffix to a person's username when he is outgunned. Funny thing is that he has deluded himself enough to actually believe that adding an "-ism" somehow makes his non-point valid. SMH

Yeah we love you too.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, "inapplicable analogies" he said.

Yep, your analogy doesnt apply. Chemistry is clearly a subset of science. Indisputable. Mathematics is not. In fact, they are very distinct areas of knowledge.

Chemistry is studied in the sciences department but mathematics isnt classified under the philosophy department in schools (except the intercepting area of philosophy of maths)

Mr_Anony:
Nope that is a misstatement. I am saying that philosophy is the love of knowledge and the seeking of it. To be more clearer, A person who studies architecture so that he can build a house is an architect but is merely a technician laying brick upon brick and churning out houses. The person who not only builds a house but goes on to study the details and implications of buildings such that he comes up with architecture theories and methods is more than an architect, he is a philosopher.
Bearing this in mind, no one studies mathematics just to do sums rather nearly every mathematician studies math so that they can examine it in detail as to how it explains reality and they try to come up and advance it with theories that may be applied to life and nature and help explain things. Yes they are philosophers. Mathematics itself is a pure form of logic.

1) Your definition of philosophy is one of the most ambiguous I have ever seen. You took the non-academic definition of philosophy. Sometimes I wonder if you really think your debating opponents are silly. There is the meaning of the word and there is the meaning of the word as an academic field of study or a discipline

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy (8 definitions and you took the one that clearly doesnt apply. Why not definitions 4,5,6,7?)


2) Unfortunately for you, I have an architect in my family and you are talking nonsense. An architect that studies architecture and chooses to design (architects dont build) only victorian houses is not studying philosophy or applying philosophy in an academic sense. He simply chooses what he likes to design and makes money from it.

3) There are people who study mathematics to either work in certain areas of life. I dont know where you got the lie that [b]nearly every [/b]mathematician studies maths to advance it with theories to explain life or some crap like that. Can you explain the maths guys that end up in the stock market or the guys that compute statistics for think thanks? You might be thinking of mathematics proffessors who come up with their theories or something but how many students of maths become proffessors vs the numbers that go on to do other work?

Mr_Anony:
The argument of unfragmented knowledge was not mine but plaetton's I just adapted it to show him that fragments make up a whole. Also there is a difference between discarding and dividing. Science did not fragment or branch out into science and sorcery. Science discarded sorcery completely as an explanation. You have thrown in an irrelevant strawman as usual.

Fail again. Were we talking about the fragmentation of science (which you would be correct) or the fragmentation of knowledge? People still study ancient alchemy.


Bonus pont; Funny how you say that science discarded sorcery but when asked, you will claim that the bible/christianity supports science. What is the difference between alchemy/sorcery and the biblical cure for leprosy?

Mr_Anony:
Logicboyism: The ad hominen of adding an "-ism" suffix to a person's username when he is outgunned. Funny thing is that he has deluded himself enough to actually believe that adding an "-ism" somehow makes his non-point valid. SMH

Yeah we love you too.

Fail. It is only an ad hominem if it is the central point of my argument rather than a logical one.

If you lie and I point out the lie and call it anonyism, it is not an ad hominem. It is irrelevant what name I use to call the lie as long as I point out why it is a lie.



You fail at philosophy.

Logicboy03:

Yep, your analogy doesnt apply. Chemistry is clearly a subset of science. Indisputable. Mathematics is not. In fact, they are very distinct areas of knowledge.

Chemistry is studied in the sciences department but mathematics isnt classified under the philosophy department in schools (except the intercepting area of philosophy of maths)

Who is talking about how schools choose to classify their subjects?

1) Your definition of philosophy is one of the most ambiguous I have ever seen. You took the non-academic definition of philosophy. Sometimes I wonder if you really think your debating opponents are silly. There is the meaning of the word and there is the meaning of the word as an academic field of study or a discipline

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy (8 definitions and you took the one that clearly doesnt apply. Why not definitions 4,5,6,7?)

This is silly...Is it a legitimate definition or not? ....or is your problem merely the fact that the definition I chose doesn't sit well with your subjective opinion of what you want philosophy to be?

2) Unfortunately for you, I have an architect in my family and you are talking nonsense. An architect that studies architecture and chooses to design (architects dont build) only victorian houses is not studying philosophy or applying philosophy in an academic sense. He simply chooses what he likes to design and makes money from it.

And I happen to be an architect myself. The point was not about building/designing but about the underlying principles and theories that guide architecture vs merely churning out houses.

3) There are people who study mathematics to either work in certain areas of life. I dont know where you got the lie that [b]nearly every [/b]mathematician studies maths to advance it with theories to explain life or some crap like that. Can you explain the maths guys that end up in the stock market or the guys that compute statistics for think thanks? You might be thinking of mathematics proffessors who come up with their theories or something but how many students of maths become proffessors vs the numbers that go on to do other work?

You have just made my point for me. There are those who study mathematics in depth and there are those who turn into human calculators. There is a difference between a mathematician and a maths-whiz.

Fail again. Were we talking about the fragmentation of science (which you would be correct) or the fragmentation of knowledge? People still study ancient alchemy.

Do they study it as history or as applicable knowledge? Your point is moot

Bonus pont; Funny how you say that science discarded sorcery but when asked, you will claim that the bible/christianity supports science. What is the difference between alchemy/sorcery and the biblical cure for leprosy?

Funny how ignorant you are of God. The point is that God is a being capable of doing things. Sorcery on the other hand is not dependent on God but on the idea that one can manipulate the supernatural by a series of directly causal actions and incantations. . .and no I don't say the bible supports science (The bible is not a science textbook) but that we can find evidence of God via science. Please stop putting your words in my mouth.

Logicboy03:


Fail. It is only an ad hominem if it is the central point of my argument rather than a logical one.

Nonsense, it is an ad hominen as long as it occupies any part of your argument.

If you lie and I point out the lie and call it anonyism, it is not an ad hominem. It is irrelevant what name I use to call the lie as long as I point out why it is a lie.

This would have made sense except that your definition of "a lie" is anything you are ignorant of.

You fail at philosophy.

Another ad hominen.

Mr_Anony:
Who is talking about how schools choose to classify their subjects?

lol....are we not talking about philosophy and maths as disciplines? Hmm? Are you saddened that colleges and universities do not support your claim that mathematics is a subset of philosopy?

Mr_Anony:
This is silly...Is it a legitimate definition or not? ....or is your problem merely the fact that the definition I chose doesn't sit well with your subjective opinion of what you want philosophy to be?

Legitimate vs appropriate. It is not an appropriate definition for the argument. Not an appropriate definition of philosophy as a discipline

It is the same way christians like you lie and take the most ambiguous definition of religion to claim that atheism is a religion

"4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

The above defintion of religion is in the colloquial sense. A legitimate definiton of religion that should never apply in a theological sense. However, dubious people like you use it. Note that if this is your definition of religion, then football supporting is a religion, marketing coca-cola is a religion, every zealous campaign is a religion.

People actually say football is religion to streess the devotion/passion of the supporters not that it is a religion like christianity or paganism.

I hope this will stop you from doing dubious definitions

God, I am too good at debunking

Mr_Anony:
And I happen to be an architect myself. The point was not about building/designing but about the underlying principles and theories that guide architecture vs merely churning out houses.

Your point is lost somewhere. Let me help you; there is a philosophy of architecture but architecture is not a philosophy. Try again.

Mr_Anony:
You have just made my point for me. There are those who study mathematics in depth and there are those who turn into human calculators. There is a difference between a mathematician and a maths-whiz.

And this makes mathematics a philosophy? You need to make premises and conclusions....you are not making any clear argument

Mr_Anony:
Do they study it as history or as applicable knowledge? Your point is moot

How does this make a difference to the fragmentation of knowledge?

Even still, you are wrong. It is not studied as history in many areas.
http://www.wikihow.com/Become-an-Alchemist

Mr_Anony:
Funny how ignorant you are of God. The point is that God is a being capable of doing things. Sorcery on the other hand is not dependent on God but on the idea that one can manipulate the supernatural by a series of directly causal actions and incantations. . .and no I don't say the bible supports science (The bible is not a science textbook) but that we can find evidence of God via science. Please stop putting your words in my mouth.

As an igbo man, can you tell me where your local witchdoctor thinks he gets his power from? Isnt from a god?

Furthermore, read your bible on the cure for leprosy and it fits your definition of sorcery;

Mr_Anony:
Sorcery on the other hand is not dependent on God but on the idea that one can manipulate the supernatural by a series of directly causal actions and incantations

Leviticus 14
King James Version (KJV)
14 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:

3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper;

4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:

5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water:

6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water:

7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field

Mr_Anony:
Nonsense, it is an ad hominen as long as it occupies any part of your argument.


This would have made sense except that your definition of "a lie" is anything you are ignorant of.


Another ad hominen.

There is a difference between mockery/insults and ad hominems.

Ad hominem is actually a case of attacking the person as a rebuttal. My mockery by calling your argument "Anonyism" has never been the focus of my argument. I always point out what is wrong then call it Anonyism.

@Anony:

If I am reading you correctly, you are making the assertion that philosophy encompasses all branches of knowledge?

That is misleading.

In that case we might as well classify necromancy and sorcery as branches of philosophy. Why not?

Let me repeat. Philosophy is speculative. Though that is the first phase of seeking knowledge, the individual often abandons speculative reasoning to pursue objective measurable knowledge in areas such as mathematics, music theory, or Necromancy.

Though a necromancer may be called a philosopher because of his previous dabbles in speculative knowledge, necromancy cannot be called a philosophy.
Do you get my drift?.

^^^^^
Philosophy and mathematics can even be seen as opposites.

Philosophy starts with a simple speculative idea and tries to find other connecting parts to form a meaningful whole, an encompassing whole body of knowledge to explain everything. A synthesis.

Mathematics on, the hand, breaks down those ideas into its constituent parts, discards what are incongruent, and then analyses the parts to understand their numerical relationships. An Analysis.

Logicboy03:

lol....are we not talking about philosophy and maths as disciplines? Hmm? Are you saddened that colleges and universities do not support your claim that mathematics is a subset of philosopy?

Again I asked; How does how schools choose to classify their subjects have any bearing on what we are discussing?

Legitimate vs appropriate. It is not an appropriate definition for the argument. Not an appropriate definition of philosophy as a discipline

How so?

It is the same way christians like you lie and take the most ambiguous definition of religion to claim that atheism is a religion

The above defintion of religion is in the colloquial sense. A legitimate definiton of religion that should never apply in a theological sense. However, dubious people like you use it. Note that if this is your definition of religion, then football supporting is a religion, marketing coca-cola is a religion, every zealous campaign is a religion.

People actually say football is religion to streess the devotion/passion of the supporters not that it is a religion like christianity or paganism.

I hope this will stop you from doing dubious definitions

God, I am too good at debunking

Red herring....irrelevant parallel

Your point is lost somewhere. Let me help you; there is a philosophy of architecture but architecture is not a philosophy. Try again.

But then the philosophy of architecture is what architecture is all about. It is plain silly to try to divorce architecture from the core theories that define it

And this makes mathematics a philosophy? You need to make premises and conclusions....you are not making any clear argument

Another poor switch attempt from you. The argument is that "mathematics is a subset of philosophy" and not that "mathematics is a philosophy"

How does this make a difference to the fragmentation of knowledge?

Even still, you are wrong. It is not studied as history in many areas.
http://www.wikihow.com/Become-an-Alchemist

We have strayed far from the point which is sorcery is not a fragment of science as chemistry, biology and physics are rather it is completely divorced from science.

As an igbo man, can you tell me where your local witchdoctor thinks he gets his power from? Isnt from a god?

Another switch....the point is not where he thinks he gets his power but that the sorcerer believes that there is a standard procedure to be followed to manipulate the supernatural i.e. a specific ritual or set of incantations that will cause something to happen. Notice that he views the spiritual as a tool.
A medical doctor could gets his medical prowess from God but that doesn't mean he tries to manipulate God into healing by by going through a specific routine of incantations and specific motions in order to make God act. God is a Person to whom requests can be made and answers can be given without the need of specific rituals. He is not a robot with a manual for control. Prayer is a person to Person communication and not the working of a machine.

Furthermore, read your bible on the cure for leprosy and it fits your definition of sorcery;

Shows how little you know of the bible....the verse you quoted is not the procedure for the cure of leprosy but a ritual for a person who has already been cured of leprosy to declare him now clean and assimilate him back into the camp.

plaetton: @Anony:

If I am reading you correctly, you are making the assertion that philosophy encompasses all branches of knowledge?

That is misleading.

In that case we might as well classify necromancy and sorcery as branches of philosophy. Why not?

Let me repeat. Philosophy is speculative. Though that is the first phase of seeking knowledge, the individual often abandons speculative reasoning to pursue objective measurable knowledge in areas such as mathematics, music theory, or Necromancy.

Though a necromancer may be called a philosopher because of his previous dabbles in speculative knowledge, necromancy cannot be called a philosophy.
Do you get my drift?.

I do get your drift but then my argument is not whether necromancy is a philosophy but whether it is a branch of it. To bring it to what we are talking about: My argument is NOT whether maths is a philosophy or not but whether it is a branch of philosophy. Slight but very important distinction.

Philosophy put very simply is the seeking of knowledge it is NOT a body of knowledge. Philosophy is the attempt to explain and learn the nature of reality. . .and if you look at the field of mathematics, it is not a body of knowledge but rather a mechanism to describe and explain reality via numbers. In fact mathematics can be described as a form of pure logic of numbers. When a person practices mathematics, he is practicing philosophy.

plaetton: ^^^^^
Philosophy and mathematics can even be seen as opposites.

Philosophy starts with a simple speculative idea and tries to find other connecting parts to form a meaningful whole, an encompassing whole body of knowledge to explain everything. A synthesis.

Mathematics on, the hand, breaks down those ideas into its constituent parts, discards what are incongruent, and then analyses the parts to understand their numerical relationships. An Analysis.

Mathematics does not have to be analytic, it can also be predictive. . . .and no philosophy and mathematics cannot be seen as opposites, it will take a very long mental stretch to make that happen.

Mr_Anony:
Mathematics does not have to be analytic, it can also be predictive. . . .and no philosophy and mathematics cannot be seen as opposites, it will take a very long mental stretch to make that happen.

Mathematics can indeed be Predictive, but not speculative, because it deals with exactitudes.

Mr_Anony:
Again I asked; How does how schools choose to classify their subjects have any bearing on what we are discussing?


How so?



Red herring....irrelevant parallel



But then the philosophy of architecture is what architecture is all about. It is plain silly to try to divorce architecture from the core theories that define it




Another poor switch attempt from you. The argument is that "mathematics is a subset of philosophy" and not that "mathematics is a philosophy"






We have strayed far from the point which is sorcery is not a fragment of science as chemistry, biology and physics are rather it is completely divorced from science.





Another switch....the point is not where he thinks he gets his power but that the sorcerer believes that there is a standard procedure to be followed to manipulate the supernatural i.e. a specific ritual or set of incantations that will cause something to happen. Notice that he views the spiritual as a tool.
A medical doctor could gets his medical prowess from God but that doesn't mean he tries to manipulate God into healing by by going through a specific routine of incantations and specific motions in order to make God act. God is a Person to whom requests can be made and answers can be given without the need of specific rituals. He is not a robot with a manual for control. Prayer is a person to Person communication and not the working of a machine.


Shows how little you know of the bible....the verse you quoted is not the procedure for the cure of leprosy but a ritual for a person who has already been cured of leprosy to declare him now clean and assimilate him back into the camp.

Lol....I have had enough anonyism for today.


You have lost the argument as usual.


You havent made any positive arguments to back up your claim that maths is a subset of philosophy.

I leave it to the watchers to judge.


2 facts you have trued to Anonynize rather than counter

-Schools/universities keep mathematics and philosophy as separate disciplines
-There is a philosophy of mathematics different from the study of mathematics

plaetton:

Mathematics can indeed be Predictive, but not speculative, because it deals with exactitudes.

As I said earlier, philosophy is not speculative by definition...that was your own invention....and yes some aspects of mathematics are pure speculation e.g. using mathematical probabilities to predict events is an exercise in speculation

Logicboy03:
Lol....I have had enough anonyism for today.


You have lost the argument as usual.


You havent made any positive arguments to back up your claim that maths is a subset of philosophy.

I leave it to the watchers to judge.


2 facts you have trued to Anonynize rather than counter

-Schools/universities keep mathematics and philosophy as separate disciplines
-There is a philosophy of mathematics different from the study of mathematics

Yawn....did you mean two irrelevant red herrings?

1. Schools and universities also keep chemistry and biology separate as well as psychiatry and psychology even computer science and computer engineering are separate....in fact almost all courses in university are separate from other ones. No point.

2. and when you study mathematics, what are you studying if not the underlying theories that define it? Again your point is moot

I see you also threw in your "anonyism" cop-out for good measure. You dey amuse me no be small.

Mr_Anony:
Yawn....did you mean two irrelevant red herrings?

Yawn.....red herring? Is this some new form of Anonyism?

Mr_Anony:
1. Schools and universities also keep chemistry and biology separate as well as psychiatry and psychology even computer science and computer engineering are separate....in fact almost all courses in university are separate from other ones. No point.

Fail.....did I not mention that chemistry, biology, psychiatry belong in the sciences department? stop using failed analogies.

Your Anonyism is failing

Mr_Anony:
2. and when you study mathematics, what are you studying if not the underlying theories that define it? Again your point is moot

I see you also threw in your "anonyism" cop-out for good measure. You dey amuse me no be small.

You might want to reread your comment again. Studying mathematics makes it a subset of philosophy?


I give up....you win.....I cant keep up with your insane arguments

I think you guys are stuck in an 'infinite loop' because you failed to understand that what you are dealing with requires recursive reasoning to understand.(no disrespect intended).
philosophy is in Mathematics and mathematics is in Philosophy: It is a recursion.

SNCOQ3: I think you guys are stuck in an 'infinite loop' because you failed to understand that what you are dealing with requires recursive reasoning to understand.(no disrespect intended).
philosophy is in Mathematics and mathematics is in Philosophy: It is a recursion.

Food for thought

@ Plaetton & R.E.R -

I repeat my statement and please note it very carefully; I said: mathematics is philosophy and there is even a branch of philosophy that is pure mathematics.

If you do not know this to be true, then you have severe challenges with your grasp of either word.

I repeat for emphasis: Mathematics IS philosophy.

It goes to the core, the pith and the centre of all logical thought on reality which is the very essential element of philosophy.

The word mathematics comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma), which, in the ancient Greek language, means "what one learns", "what one gets to know", hence also "study" and "science", and in modern Greek just "lesson". The word máthēma is derived from μανθάνω (manthano), while the modern Greek equivalent is μαθαίνω (mathaino), both of which mean "to learn". In Greece, the word for "mathematics" came to have the narrower and more technical meaning "mathematical study", even in Classical times.[18] Its adjective is μαθηματικός (mathēmatikós), meaning "related to learning" or "studious", which likewise further came to mean "mathematical". In particular, μαθηματικὴ τέχνη (mathēmatikḗ tékhnē), Latin: ars mathematica, meant "the mathematical art".

In Latin, and in English until around 1700, the term mathematics more commonly meant "astrology" (or sometimes "astronomy" ) rather than "mathematics"; the meaning gradually changed to its present one from about 1500 to 1800. This has resulted in several mistranslations: a particularly notorious one is Saint Augustine's warning that Christians should beware of mathematici meaning astrologers, which is sometimes mistranslated as a condemnation of mathematicians.

The apparent plural form in English, like the French plural form les mathématiques (and the less commonly used singular derivative la mathématique), goes back to the Latin neuter plural mathematica (Cicero), based on the Greek plural τα μαθηματικά (ta mathēmatiká), used by Aristotle (384–322 BC), and meaning roughly "all things mathematical"; although it is plausible that English borrowed only the adjective mathematic(al) and formed the noun mathematics anew, after the pattern of physics and metaphysics, which were inherited from the Greek.[19] In English, the noun mathematics takes singular verb forms. It is often shortened to maths or, in English-speaking North America, math.[20]

Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, "knowledge, study, learning" ) is the abstract study of topics encompassing quantity,[2] structure,[3] space,[2] change,[4][5] and other properties;[6] it has no generally accepted definition.[7][8]

Mathematicians seek out patterns[9][10] and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. The research required to solve mathematical problems can take years or even centuries of sustained inquiry. Since the pioneering work of Giuseppe Peano (1858–1932), David Hilbert (1862–1943), and others on axiomatic systems in the late 19th century, it has become customary to view mathematical research as establishing truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions. When those mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight or predictions about nature.

Through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, mathematics developed from counting, calculation, measurement, and the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects. Practical mathematics has been a human activity for as far back as written records exist. Rigorous arguments first appeared in Greek mathematics, most notably in Euclid's Elements. Mathematics developed at a relatively slow pace until the Renaissance, when mathematical innovations interacting with new scientific discoveries led to a rapid increase in the rate of mathematical discovery that has continued to the present day.[11]

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) said, "The universe cannot be read until we have learned the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word. Without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth."[12] Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855) referred to mathematics as "the Queen of the Sciences."[13] Benjamin Peirce (1809–1880) called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions."[14] David Hilbert said of mathematics: "We are not speaking here of arbitrariness in any sense. Mathematics is not like a game whose tasks are determined by arbitrarily stipulated rules. Rather, it is a conceptual system possessing internal necessity that can only be so and by no means otherwise."[15] Albert Einstein (1879–1955) stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

The Philosophy of Mathematics asks these recurrent questions -

What are the sources of mathematical subject matter?
What is the ontological status of mathematical entities?
What does it mean to refer to a mathematical object?
What is the character of a mathematical proposition?
What is the relation between logic and mathematics?
What is the role of hermeneutics in mathematics?
What kinds of inquiry play a role in mathematics?
What are the objectives of mathematical inquiry?
What gives mathematics its hold on experience?
What are the human traits behind mathematics?
What is mathematical beauty?
What is the source and nature of mathematical truth?
What is the relationship between the abstract world of mathematics and the material universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

I should ask you if there is any logical person who can contemplate the foregoing without cognizing immediately the very deep, profound and exact nature of mathematics as the very root of philosophy.

I say again; and reflect closely on this particular statement: Mathematics goes to the core, the pith and the centre of all logical thought on reality which is the very essential element of philosophy.

End of.

Deep Sight: @ Plaetton & R.E.R -

I repeat my statement and please note it very carefully; I said: mathematics is philosophy and there is even a branch of philosophy that is pure mathematics.

If you do not know this to be true, then you have severe challenges with your grasp of either word.

I repeat for emphasis: Mathematics IS philosophy.

It goes to the core, the pith and the centre of all logical thought on reality which is the very essential element of philosophy.

The word mathematics comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma), which, in the ancient Greek language, means "what one learns", "what one gets to know", hence also "study" and "science", and in modern Greek just "lesson". The word máthēma is derived from μανθάνω (manthano), while the modern Greek equivalent is μαθαίνω (mathaino), both of which mean "to learn". In Greece, the word for "mathematics" came to have the narrower and more technical meaning "mathematical study", even in Classical times.[18] Its adjective is μαθηματικός (mathēmatikós), meaning "related to learning" or "studious", which likewise further came to mean "mathematical". In particular, μαθηματικὴ τέχνη (mathēmatikḗ tékhnē), Latin: ars mathematica, meant "the mathematical art".

In Latin, and in English until around 1700, the term mathematics more commonly meant "astrology" (or sometimes "astronomy" ) rather than "mathematics"; the meaning gradually changed to its present one from about 1500 to 1800. This has resulted in several mistranslations: a particularly notorious one is Saint Augustine's warning that Christians should beware of mathematici meaning astrologers, which is sometimes mistranslated as a condemnation of mathematicians.

The apparent plural form in English, like the French plural form les mathématiques (and the less commonly used singular derivative la mathématique), goes back to the Latin neuter plural mathematica (Cicero), based on the Greek plural τα μαθηματικά (ta mathēmatiká), used by Aristotle (384–322 BC), and meaning roughly "all things mathematical"; although it is plausible that English borrowed only the adjective mathematic(al) and formed the noun mathematics anew, after the pattern of physics and metaphysics, which were inherited from the Greek.[19] In English, the noun mathematics takes singular verb forms. It is often shortened to maths or, in English-speaking North America, math.[20]

Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, "knowledge, study, learning" ) is the abstract study of topics encompassing quantity,[2] structure,[3] space,[2] change,[4][5] and other properties;[6] it has no generally accepted definition.[7][8]

[color=#990000]Mathematicians seek out patterns[9][10] and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. The research required to solve mathematical problems can take years or even centuries of sustained inquiry. Since the pioneering work of Giuseppe Peano (1858–1932), David Hilbert (1862–1943), and others on axiomatic systems in the late 19th century, it has become customary to view mathematical research as establishing truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions. When those mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight or predictions about nature.

Through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, mathematics developed from counting, calculation, measurement, and the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects. Practical mathematics has been a human activity for as far back as written records exist. Rigorous arguments first appeared in Greek mathematics, most notably in Euclid's Elements. Mathematics developed at a relatively slow pace until the Renaissance, when mathematical innovations interacting with new scientific discoveries led to a rapid increase in the rate of mathematical discovery that has continued to the present day.[11]

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) said, "The universe cannot be read until we have learned the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word. Without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth."[12] Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855) referred to mathematics as "the Queen of the Sciences."[13] Benjamin Peirce (1809–1880) called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions."[14] David Hilbert said of mathematics: "We are not speaking here of arbitrariness in any sense. Mathematics is not like a game whose tasks are determined by arbitrarily stipulated rules. Rather, it is a conceptual system possessing internal necessity that can only be so and by no means otherwise."[15] Albert Einstein (1879–1955) stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."[16][/color]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

The Philosophy of Mathematics asks these recurrent questions -

What are the sources of mathematical subject matter?
What is the ontological status of mathematical entities?
What does it mean to refer to a mathematical object?
What is the character of a mathematical proposition?
What is the relation between logic and mathematics?
What is the role of hermeneutics in mathematics?
What kinds of inquiry play a role in mathematics?
What are the objectives of mathematical inquiry?
What gives mathematics its hold on experience?
What are the human traits behind mathematics?
What is mathematical beauty?
What is the source and nature of mathematical truth?
What is the relationship between the abstract world of mathematics and the material universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

I should ask you if there is any logical person who can contemplate the foregoing without cognizing immediately the very deep, profound and exact nature of mathematics as the very root of philosophy.

I say again; and reflect closely on this particular statement: Mathematics goes to the core, the pith and the centre of all logical thought on reality which is the very essential element of philosophy.

End of.

Deepsight:

There is no doubt that Mathematics goes to the core of all logical thought on reality, which according to you, makes it AN ELEMENT of philosophy. However, with that definition, every human endeavour can also be classified an element of philosophy. Astrology is philosophy, astronomy is philosophy, biology is philosophy, juju is philosophy, etc.
Philosophy, by that basic definition, encompasses all learning and all attempts to learn.

Note the top bolded in blue and please read it again.

Mathematicians seek out patterns[9][10] and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof.

Mathematics resolve the truth or falsity of PHILOSOPHICAL conjectures by establishing proof.

Basic Philosophy is speculation and conjectures. One can accept and live with these conjectures for eternity, but Mathematics dissects and validates or refutes these conjectures.

Mathematics is not philosophy, it transcends philosophy.
It is superior to philosophy.

plaetton:

Deepsight:

There is no doubt that Mathematics goes to the core of all logical thought on reality, which according to you, makes it AN ELEMENT of philosophy. However, with that definition, every human endeavour can also be classified an element of philosophy. Astrology is philosophy, astronomy is philosophy, biology is philosophy, juju is philosophy, etc.
Philosophy, by that basic definition, encompasses all learning and all attempts to learn.

Note the top bolded in blue and please read it again.

Mathematicians seek out patterns[9][10] and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof.

Mathematics resolve the truth or falsity of PHILOSOPHICAL conjectures by establishing proof.

Basic Philosophy is speculation and conjectures. One can accept and live with these conjectures for eternity, but Mathematics dissects and validates or refutes these conjectures.

Mathematics is not philosophy, it transcends philosophy.
It is superior to philosophy.

Sweet.

Logicboy03:



Sweet.

Ya.
If Mathematics is Philosophy, then you would not have a discipline called The Philosophy of Mathematics, would you?