Talk:Q246672
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — mathematical object (Q246672)
description: abstract object in mathematics
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “mathematical object” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
mathematical object⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
quality
[edit]concept of time is not applied --Fractaler (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Mathematical objects are not scientific objects
[edit]Does anybody care to justify the claim that mathematics objects are a subclass of scientific object (Q30060700)? I think they are two different concepts and will delete the claim if there are no objections. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Saying that mathematics is not science understandable but not useful. --Infovarius (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Can you explain what you mean by "not useful"? Making Q246672 a subclass of scientific object (Q30060700) means that have a lot of miscategorized items. For instance, quaternion (Q173853) is a an instance of scientific object (Q30060700)(?!), which doesn't make any sense. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- You know, commonly speaking, science/non-science is a dychotomy. So saying that quaternion (Q173853) are not scientific object (Q30060700) means that this notion is not scientific, i.e. can't be used for science. By the way, what do you mean by this example? --Infovarius (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I would say that mathematical objects are not scientific. The distinction come from the fact that science is concerned with empirical knowledge whereas mathematics is concerned with rational knowledge. So, we know that gravity exists because we observe it (science) but we know that there are infinitely many prime numbers because we can prove it without any observations (mathematics). So, for the example of quaternions, a quaternion is not a scientific object because it is known through reason, not through observations. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Science is rational. And I believe that many disciplines are a hybrid of mathematics and something else, are they "sciences"? Partial differential equations (also called "equations of mathematical physics")? Theoretical physics? Mathematical economy? --Infovarius (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, science is rational, of course---I'm not saying otherwise. And the field of science uses mathematics all the time, but that doesn't mean that mathematics is a subclass of science, nor that a mathematical object is a subclass of scientific object. The item Q30060700 is poorly defined (is a scientific object any object studied by science? any object used to study science? both?), but there are examples of mathematical objects that are neither used nor studied by science. For example, Fermat's last theorem states that there are no natural numbers (1, 2, 3,…) x, y, and z such that in which is a natural number greater than . This theorem is a mathematical object, but it is not studied by science nor used in science, so it is not a scientific object, therefore scientific object (Q30060700) is not a subclass of mathematical object (Q246672). (If you happen to come up with some application for this particular theorem, then there are no shortage of others that can be found, such as Godel's incompleteness theorem, or the infinitude of primes). The-erinaceous-one (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Science is rational. And I believe that many disciplines are a hybrid of mathematics and something else, are they "sciences"? Partial differential equations (also called "equations of mathematical physics")? Theoretical physics? Mathematical economy? --Infovarius (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I would say that mathematical objects are not scientific. The distinction come from the fact that science is concerned with empirical knowledge whereas mathematics is concerned with rational knowledge. So, we know that gravity exists because we observe it (science) but we know that there are infinitely many prime numbers because we can prove it without any observations (mathematics). So, for the example of quaternions, a quaternion is not a scientific object because it is known through reason, not through observations. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- You know, commonly speaking, science/non-science is a dychotomy. So saying that quaternion (Q173853) are not scientific object (Q30060700) means that this notion is not scientific, i.e. can't be used for science. By the way, what do you mean by this example? --Infovarius (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Can you explain what you mean by "not useful"? Making Q246672 a subclass of scientific object (Q30060700) means that have a lot of miscategorized items. For instance, quaternion (Q173853) is a an instance of scientific object (Q30060700)(?!), which doesn't make any sense. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)