From Talk:Applications/Science

Viewing a history listing

Viewing a history listing

Time | User | Activity | Comment |
---|---|---|---|

21:23, 27 June 2011 | Pipesmoker (Talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to What's about Math?) |

12:44, 27 June 2011 | Yurchor (Talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to What's about Math?) |

12:34, 27 June 2011 | Pipesmoker (Talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to What's about Math?) |

06:31, 27 June 2011 | Yurchor (Talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to What's about Math?) |

01:09, 27 June 2011 | Pipesmoker (Talk | contribs) | New thread created |

Imho math applications should be sorted anywhere but only in the education section. KRWard is a frontend to R, and Cantor ist, too - which is listed under Education/Math. On the other hand Cantor can use other backends like Maxima, which is more math orientated (solving equations and so on).

So could we rename "Sience" into "Math & Sience" or something similar?

Cheers

Surely, we can. But does it make sense? Every natural science in a modern world has mathematical core as well as any computer program.

What is the sense to separate physics, molecular biology, material science, programming, etc. from pure maths? For example, if GSoC project will be successful Cantor will have Scilab backend. Scilab can be used for pure mathematics (matrix algebra) or for engineering computation (Xcos). What is the right method to classify Scilab?

Of course, science uses math to describe their theory. But math itself is an abstract theory and has nothing to do with describing or understanding real nature. So it doesn't fit into the science category, imho. E.g. I think I would not expect a CAS like Maxima in the science category. Adding "Math & " or " & Math" and then we could add Kig, too, couldn't we?