Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 23:09:22 +0900
From: Andrzej Kozlowski <andrzej@tuins.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: Why are we here?

On Wed, Jan 20, 1999, DON DAVIS <dmd1@Lehigh.EDU> wrote:

>Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:22:04 GMT
>From: J.Greenlees@sheffield.ac.uk (John Greenlees)
>Subject: Why are we here?
>
>
>  I've been hoping someone else would deal with this, but
>I can't restrain myself any longer.
>
>  The definition of mathematics as the study
>of well defined things is a public relations disaster.
>I also believe that it is wrong, because it doesn't
>describe what I do. Most of my mathematical effort
>(certainly the most interesting bit) is expended on
>things which are not (yet) well defined. The answer
>sounds like the revisionist account of work we usually
>use when we publish.
>
>
>
>       John Greenlees
>
>
Certainly many of the greatest mathematicians, eg. Euler, Riemann etc
dealt with concepts which  never even became well defined in their life
time.  But I guess what was meant was something like "well definable".
(Though does this mean that mathematics containing errors or "non well
defined objects"is not mathematics at all?)

Andrzej Kozlowski
Toyama International University
JAPAN
http://sigma.tuins.ac.jp/
http://eri2.tuins.ac.jp/

_____________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:28:15 +0100 (MET)
From: Martin Crossley <crossley@e-math.ams.org>
Subject: Re: Why are we here?

i agree that the "study of well defined things"
definition is wrong and disastrous for public relations.
it seems to me that a more accurate answer would be that
it's the study of "potentially well defined things", but
this is surely even more disastrous in terms of public
relations. is there no way to be accurate without sounding
crazy to a layman ?

martin crossley