• Question: Gauss said that "Mathematics is the queen of all sciences." Do you agree?

    Asked by eigenvector to Arttu, Ceri, James_M, Monica, Philip on 14 Jun 2011.
    • Photo: James M Monk

      James M Monk answered on 13 Jun 2011:

      No, because mathematics isn’t quite the same as a science. Mathematics is important though because it informs a lot of scientific models.

    • Photo: Philip Dolan

      Philip Dolan answered on 13 Jun 2011:

      Yeah, I agree that there’s a distinction, in that mathematics doesn’t really care about the results of experiments, where as the sciences do.

    • Photo: Ceri Brenner

      Ceri Brenner answered on 13 Jun 2011:

      I’d say that physics is the queen and that maths is like the royal advisor-the two go hand in hand and support eachother but physics is the ruling master of all as it governs what we observe and measure. It’s true that maths isn’t quite on the same level as science, as it tends to be in the abstract, but you can’t have one without the other.

    • Photo: Arttu Rajantie

      Arttu Rajantie answered on 14 Jun 2011:

      I find maths absolutely fascinating, but I agree with the others that it is not really a science. In sciences, we know that our theory is not the absolute truth, and some day someone will come up with a better theory, but it is the best description of nature that anyone has been able to think of. Maths is very different. Every theorem is absolutely true and will always remain so.

Comments

  • Photo: eigenvector

    eigenvector commented on :

    What about this example from http://www.arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/index.html ?

    “Let’s say I make the claim that this function —

    f(x) = x^2 + x + 41 (from Euler)

    — if provided with natural numbers as arguments, will produce only prime numbers (numbers divisible only by themselves and one) as results.

    This claim has all the properties required for science — it poses a theory testable using evidence, and if the evidence contradicts it, the theory is falsified. And it even possesses a diligence factor — if the experiment isn’t conducted with sufficient zeal, it may produce an unreliable result.

    As it turns out, this remarkable function will generate a prime result for each argument in the range 0 <= x <= 39, but at x = 40 it fails. Back in the days of hand computation, several days might be required to generate and test the results. This problem also has what I call a "coffee break" property — we might start at zero, struggle up to 39 and then … coffee break!

    Euler's prime generator makes a statement about pure mathematics, not nature, yet it is testable and falsifiable in a scientific way."