Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: definition of "wave"



At 3:01 AM -0600 1/27/00, Digby Willard wrote:
from Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>:
>
> A mathematician, you are to likely agree, could not function without
> a definition. Right?

No. Geometry works just fine without defining point, line, or plane.


At 6:16 AM -0500 1/27/00, John Denker wrote:
It provides a lesson on the unimportance of definitions. Students often
demand a definition of this or that, and they get really ticked off if they
don't get one. But I suspect most real-world physicists get along just
fine without having a precise definition of "wave". Biologists can't even
agree on the definition of "plant" and "animal".


It seems to ME that the MOST important 'words' in ANY field of
endeavor cannot be given a complete and consistent definition.
(Shades of Goedel?)


The MOST important words (concepts?) cannot be limited by those that
are less important.


This list will NEVER settle on a definition of energy, nor will anyone else.

and chemists won't give an acceptable definition of 'molecule' and
biologist will give a list of characteristics that are shown by
'living things' but won't DEFINE life.

-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-
\ / \ / \ N / \ C / \ S / \ S / \ M / \ / \ /
`-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-'
Chuck Britton Education is what is left when
britton@academic.ncssm.edu you have forgotten everything
North Carolina School of Science & Math you learned in school.
(919) 286-3366 x224 Albert Einstein, 1936