Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,515

For the pages at MIF, why not have a more layman-type definition and a rigorous one? For example, there are set theory tutorials on MIF, so why not cover the rigorous definition of a function and relation? You might want to add a page regarding Cartesian products in the set theory tutorials first.

Offline

There are other sites for rigorous definitions..

'And fun? If maths is fun, then getting a tooth extraction is fun. A viral infection is fun. Rabies shots are fun.'

'God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it'

'Humanity is still kept intact. It remains within.' -Alokananda

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,515

To be honest, that isn't really a valid counterpoint. There are also other sites which provide mathematics tutorials. I meant not to just provide the definition, but explain it a little.

Offline

Why do we need the formal definition?

bobbym wrote:

Anything formal is useless.

'And fun? If maths is fun, then getting a tooth extraction is fun. A viral infection is fun. Rabies shots are fun.'

'God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it'

'Humanity is still kept intact. It remains within.' -Alokananda

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,515

To understand mathematics better. And it is a requirement in further mathematics.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,472

I believe the quote is

Anything rigorous is meaningless

it was said by Rene Thom. It is not necessarily my viewpoint on rigor.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,304

hi ShivamS

There's nothing to stop you making such a page(s).

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,515

Agnishom wrote:

Why do we need the formal definition?

bobbym wrote:Anything formal is useless.

You do not like rigorous mathematics? That's probably because you haven't been exposed to a lot of it, but most of university mathematics is intuition/motivation -> definition -> derivation -> proof/other justification -> examples/application. There, everything is formal and you usually won't be given analogies like "a function is a machine," which is the popular one with functions.

bob bundy wrote:

hi ShivamS

There's nothing to stop you making such a page(s).

Bob

I am not MIF.

On a side note, what stage do you teach? I think you mentioned AS/A level some time ago.

*Last edited by ShivamS (2014-05-17 11:56:56)*

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,304

hi ShivamS

My training is for ages 11-18, but I have also taught younger and the occasional college student.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,515

I also had a dream that bobbym posted in this thread saying his viewpoint on rigor!

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,472

He might have, but I usually do not pay much attention to what he says.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline