Do you believe that mathematicians are philosphers?
337579
I don't know about the meaning of life, but math certainly can be used to take abstract ideas in real life and put them into a simple format.  That is a form of philosophy.  Math is just a broad term for using symbols to represent real life things and their relation to each other.
691217
That would depend on which philosophers you are asking about. Most have believed that use of logic is the key to all truth. However, this is what Aristotle did and it turned out in practice he was entirely wrong about a lot of things. (He said if you dropped something from the top of a tower and the world spun out from under it as it rotates, then the item would land far from the base of the tower. Galileo showed this to be false, and then explained why. He used observation instead of just logic.)\n\nThis is a very broad question you have. The way physicist come to understand the universe is by both following logical thought, and observing the world around them, then matching the two up.\n\nThough perhaps the real truth is best found in the Tao te Ching. I highly suggest everyone read and come to understand it.
757310
It's odd that you ask this question cos I am positive that, all things being equal, mathematicians are able to calculate their final day.  I have heard that they have secret meetings in a place known only as Pascal's Triangle. While enjoying apple cider and pi they discuss factors and variables and plot their finite days on the X-Y axis.\n  *  There is an acute case of irrational subtracting going on here. It is a bad sine.
988465
Philosophiae Doctor (Doctor of Philosophy).
1136884
mathematics is a bais of other sciences . without mathematics we will not underestand physics. both physics and mathematics are basis of technology.
661117
I think Saul of Tarsus was correct when he poetically observed that "we see through a glass, darkly". Our perceptions are a single mode of reality, but there are other modes that we cannot percieve directly, such as the world of the very small and the world of the very large. We must use the scientific method and instruments to enable us to indirectly extend our ability and percieve the things that we can't otherwise observe, but that do have a bearing on our lives nonetheless.\n\nI find it very interesting that the world of human perception is in the middle of the world of things, including size, velocity, temperature, and light, among other possible characteristics of the universe. The extremes extend to both sides of our perceptual abilities, both above and below. I think this is philosophically significant, but I have yet to ascertain exactly what that significance is.
886143
Hi. Euclid did a lot more than that. : http://www.answers.com/topic/euclidean-geometry-1\nGetting folks to think rationally about geometry was a great contribution.
1046939
Aristotle contributed in mathematical philosophy.  One of the reasons for this was that Aristotle held that physics was about changing objects with a reality of their own, whereas mathematics was about unchanging objects without a reality of their own. In this philosophy, he could not imagine that there was a relationship between them. In contrast, today's science assumes that thinking alone often leads people astray, and therefore one must compare one's ideas to the actual world through experimentation; only then can one discern if one's hypothesis corresponds to reality. This is known as the scientific method.\n\nEuclid is often considered to be the "father of geometry". His most popular work, Elements, is thought to be one of the most successful textbooks in the history of mathematics. Within it, the properties of geometrical objects are deduced from a small set of axioms, thereby founding the axiomatic method of mathematics.\n\nAlthough best-known for its geometric results, the Elements also includes various results in number theory, such as the connection between perfect numbers and Mersenne primes.\n\nEuclid also wrote works on perspective, conic sections, spherical geometry, and possibly quadric surfaces.  \n\nEinstein began to learn mathematics around age twelve; in 1891, he taught himself Euclidean plane geometry from a school booklet and began to study calculus. While at the Gymnasium, he clashed with authority and resented the school regimen, believing that the spirit of learning and creative thought were lost in such endeavors as strict memorization.\nThere is a recurring rumor that Einstein failed mathematics later in his education, but this is untrue; a change in the numbering-system used to record grades may have confused some persons who looked at the records years later.\n\nLong answer again!  You can check out link for more information.
711110
You can give geometry a logical structure and build on the simplest of facts.\n\nThese basic facts are accepted as being true and they are called GIVENS.  Euclid, the Greek mathematician called them AXIOMS.\n\nSo,  in geometry we start with basic facts or givens such  as  'vertically opposite angles are equal.' \n\nFrom this small collection of givens you can begin to prove other facts in geometry.   For example, you can proove that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.\n\nYou can use these proofs to prove other more complicated 'facts' about geometric shapes etc.  The great thing is that when you try to do this you don't have to keep going back and prove all the other things.  This approach is called DEDUCTIVE PROOF.  \n\nIn mathematics proofs are considered absolute.  Once a proof has been made it will always be true.\n\nThe abbreviations and symbols that are used are essentially the same as algebra.  This is a key point because rather than dealing with numbers you use symbols and then the proof is true for all values.\n\nA proof has to be set out logically and ALL the steps should be shown.  As you build the proof you use symbols such the three triangular dots for 'therefore' and ==> for 'which gives.'  Words such as 'necessary'; 'sufficient' and 'converse' are also used.\n\nAt the end of the proof mathematicians used to write QED which is an abbreviation for the latin 'quod erat demonstrandum' which means 'which was to be shown or proved.'  I think that has fallen out of fashion and people write 'which was to be proved' at the end of end with the last line of the proof.\n\nThere are other methods for making a proof.
1159729
Euclid of Alexandria (Greek: Εὐκλείδης) (ca. 325 BC–265 BC), a Greek mathematician, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt almost certainly during the reign of Ptolemy I (323 BC–283 BC), is often considered to be the "father of geometry". \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid\n\nIt seems Euclid is the father, by general consent! -\nhttp://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52508.html\n\nEuclid, who is considered the father of mathematics, taught in Egypt at Alexandria.\nhttp://everyschool.org/u/logan/culturalmath/afmathematicians.htm\n\nPythagoras (approximately 582 BC–507 BC, Greek: Πυθαγόρας) was an Ionian (Greek) mathematician and philosopher, founder of the mystic, religious and scientific society called Pythagoreans, and is known best for the Pythagorean theorem which bears his name. Known as "the father of numbers":\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras\n\nArchimedes (Greek: Αρχιμήδης ) (c. 287 BC – 212 BC) was an ancient Greek mathematician, physicist, engineer, astronomer, and philosopher born in the seaport colony of Syracuse, Sicily. He is considered by some historians of mathematics to be one of the greatest mathematicians in antiquity; Carl Friedrich Gauss considered him one of the two greatest ever (the other being himself.)\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes\n\nAl-Khwarizmi is held to be the father of algebra:\nhttp://www.math.umd.edu/~czorn/hist_algebra.pdf\n\nRene Descartes (March 31, 1596 – February 11, 1650), also known as Cartesius, is considered to be the father of modern mathematics:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rene_Descartes\nhttp://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/descart2.htm
51903
where there exists intelligence, also exists an intellect. where there exists design, also exists a designer. this is the premise of cause and effect. that said, imagine for a moment all the planets in our solar system as they travel through space at varying speeds creating huge wide elliptical orbits around the sun covering hundreds of millions of miles . then to have them arrive at certain positions in space with such incredible consistency that we can set our clocks by the motion of these planets. accurate to within 2/10,000ths of a second. a truly amazing mathematical feat. where there exists mathematics, there also exists a mathematician. everything has an equation,it has  already been calculated and in place waiting for us to discover it. the math alone, is enough to justify a place in the school curriculum.
645695
okay, how about this list of famous scientists, philosophers, and inventors who believe in God?\nalbert einstein\nthomas edison\nanthony fynn\nthomas jefferson\nbenjamin franklin\nisaac newton\nisaac asimov\nmichael faraday\nfrederick hoyle\nfrancis crick\ngeorge washington\nabraham lincoln\n\nhow some of these names ended up on your list, i'll never know; as their quotes clearly signify their belief in an intelligent designer at the very least.  "atheist" implies belief in no god at all.  \n\nmost of the names on there are just faces or names or voices anyway.  you asked for "scientists, inventors, and philosophers"  bjork is not a philosopher, neither is barry manilow.  hearing them sing is one thing, but they certainly should not be classified as authorities when i comes to spiritual doctrine.
153034
No, nobody really can prove it, with assuming several axioms\nfirst. There are certain things you have to assume are true in your universe, without necessary being able to check them. From those axioms, you can derive conclusions (theorems) that are always true, but only in that particular\nuniverse. The discussed operation of addition is one such theorem. If you assume that the axioms of natural numbers are true, then this addition becomes quite trivival. If you assume those axioms of natural numbers to be false, then the above operation of addition might become false with a different set of supposition. In other words, only with the facts given, one cannot prove, nor disprove, the fact of addition. It all depends on the set of assumptions you would have made before adding the two ones.
820998
Pythagoras, the famous mathematician and contemporary of Socrates among the Greek philosophers belonged to the 6th century B.C.(569 - 475 B.C.) Apastamba Sulba Sutra, a set of mathematical formulas and principles belonged to 8th century B.C. and was in use in India which contains a list of Pythagorian Triples. It is indicative of the fact that Pythagoras learnt it from India before teaching the Greeks. Accoding to Albert Burk, Pythagoras copied it on his visit to India. Lecky in his 'History of European Morals' quotes an old tradition in Greece that Pythagoras had learnt in India from gymnosophists.\n\nPythagoras was a vegetarian and believed in transformation of human soul. He believed and lived like Indians that only by purifying your body you can attain divine powers and at the end merge with divinity. Hence, he insisted that a disciple should first be formally initiated by a preceptor who himself must be pure so that he can impart knowledge to others. Hindu thought also exerted a great influence on ancient Greek thought as M.E. Pococke shows in his 'India in Greece'.It is believed that besides Pythagoras, Appolonius, Democritus, Anaxarchus and Pyrrho also visited India. According to Lucianus, the Golden Philosophy first descended upon "the Indians, the mightiest nation upon the earth".\n\nThe famous Pythagorean Theorem was not in use for five hundred years after death of Pythagoras. It was Cicero and Plutarch who attributed the theorem to Pythagoras, though according to Sir Thomas L. Heath, there is no attribution by Pythagoras himself during his lifetime.
438820
No, but some physicists think they have.  String theory is the most popular unifying theory, but it makes no testable predictions, meaning that its really more philosophy than hard science.  There are other theories out there too.  For example , Heim Theory involves extra dimensions in which the speed of light is different in order to unify the four fources (electromagnetic, strong, weak, gravity).
108223
You are getting confused between the language in science and mathematics, I suspect. \n\nScience and mathematics are two different domains. They have their own terminology and cultures. Mathematicians want to call themselves scientists sometimes (although often not since that sounds too dirty and applied), but they are not. Scientists use mathematics, and sometimes the most theoretical scientists might even call themselves mathematicians, but they are not. Having worked in both mathematics and science, with plenty of each, I can definitely tell you that mathematicians are NOT scientists, and vice-versa. \n\nIn mathematics you can actually prove things. In science you cannot. You can have things that have a lot of evidence behind them in science, but no absolute proof like you can in mathematics. \n\nIn mathematics you have a set number of axioms that you agree on before hand (the rules of the game). In science you make assumptions sometimes, but it is often not as formal. \n\nIn science you have data from experiments. In mathematics you don't really have data, but you have calculations. \n\nIn science you have theories, and also in math you have theories, but they are not the same. Just like the meaning of theory in general use is not the same (much to the consternation and confusion of creationists, who just don't seem to get it, or at least want to get it). \n\nA mathematical theory like Group Theory will never be discarded because somehow someone has proved some new theorem and it is all obselete now. In science, the Theory of Gravity will eventually be replaced by something better that fits more of the data, although the previous theories might still be useful in some restricted domain.\n\nIn science you have models, which are somewhat like statistical models. Real mathematicians by and large will not touch a field as filthy as statistics. In science, statistics is just another tool.\n\nLaws are really something from science, not mathematics (although there is a cosine law in trigonometry; it probably should be called something else). And even the laws in science are not really set in stone like they are in mathematics. What science CALLS mathematical laws are really just models that sorta fit the data, kind of. More filthy statistics. However, I did find a few papers on the internet that did not call it the Pythagorean Theorem, but the Pythagorean Law. Hooke's laws, the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Gravity are really not near as solid as the Pythagorean Law. Newton's Law of Gravity was replaced, and I am fairly sure that General Relativity will be replaced in turn, at least once more if not multiple times as more data accumulates. The meaning of the term "law" in common parlance is different yet again, just as it is in the case of theory. \n\nOne could continue with all manner of terms that sort of overlap between these fields, like lemma and corollary and hypothesis and conjecture and fact and error and converge and problem and experiment and prediction and data and so on. However, I think this serves to alert the careful reader to the fact that there are some linguistic and cultural minefields that have to be navigated with care.
419322
It was believed that he saw the shadows of the pillars on the tiled temple floor, that looked like a right angled triangle with squares attached. \nFrom there he developed his theory that the square drawn on the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle, is equal in area to the sum of the squares drawn on the other two sides.\nPythagoras put forward a proof, but said proof contained errors to do with transient numbers, however it seemed the theory was sound.\nSome two centuries later the Great Euclid himself proved it, with his brilliant proof using congruent triangles, true poetry of geometry.