|
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Terry Padden wrote:
> Superficially it seems that we have at least 5 distinct terminologies
> covering the same fundamental concepts. They are (I think, but I may have
> them mixed up)
>
> In Logic Conjunction & Disjunction
Also universal quantifier and existential quantifier.
> In Set Theory Intersection & Union
Also great intersection, great union.
> In Boolean Algebra AND & OR
also inf, sup
> In Lattice Theory Meet & Join
also inf, sup and glb, lub
> In Arithmetic HCF & LCM
>
Likely HCF is typo for gcf which also known as gcd.
In analysis: inf, sup and glb, lub
> Obviously the axiomatics of the different contexts will provide different
> interpretations and applicability - but are the different vocabularies all
> really necessary or useful - or just confusing ?
>
Got any problem, complaint, gripe about synonyms?
> Probably I am missing something obvious and/or significant. Perhaps someone
> could point out significancy different concepts covered by the respective
> vocabularies; or significant advantages of multiple vocabularies for one lot
> of concepts.
>
Yah, don't use French adjectives with Spanish nouns.
> Otherwise, once again, I can only conclude that Maths (in which for this
> post I include Logic) is in its Tower of Babel phase.
>
You think that when all languages except English are extinct, that humans
will have accomplished glorious achievement of no longer Babeling?
Assignment: go to university library and find a physics to chemistry,
chemistry to physics, dictionary of thermodynamics terms.
|
|