tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Is this question too philosophical for MO?)

Andrew Stacey comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3590)

Andrew Stacey — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:48:34 -0800

And just when I was starting to actually like the Angel of the North as well ...

Sonia Balagopalan comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3589)

Sonia Balagopalan — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:42:24 -0800

@Andrew: I see that you haven't lived in the ITV coverage area in a long time. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7776059.stm

Andrew Stacey comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3588)

Andrew Stacey — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:18:17 -0800

That article is a sham! It doesn't mention the most famous Geordie of all: Ruth Archer!

And if you think Geordie is incomprehensible, you should try pitmatic.

Sam Nead comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3586)

Sam Nead — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:20:11 -0800

Since I don't know what a Gordie is (and since I apparently cannot read the native language of the author of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geordie ) I humbly withdraw the suggestion.

Andrew Stacey comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3572)

Andrew Stacey — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:46:02 -0800

Now that I'm home, I can consult with a close approximation of a Geordie. "Nackaad" (and the "aa" is pronounced something like a very short "a") does mean "broken" but is generally used for things rather than people. Interestingly, said Geordie said that it might be used of a person to mean "beat up", as in:

Reet, Ah'm fid oop av them Sunderland supporters. Ah'll nackaah them next teem.

Emerton comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3560)

Emerton — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 07:34:12 -0800

Dear Yemon and Andrew,

I have to agree with your definition, and conclude that uncouth Australian kids (or, at least, this one) merged the two words, "knacker's" and "knackers", unthinkingly. (For example, we used the verb "to knacker" in the context of sports, playground fights, or other situations with the potential for such an injury, and in particular spoke of someone being "knackered" in such a context; this seemed to be based on the specific meaning of "knackers", but at the same time, certainly led to the victim being broken in a more general sense as well.)

Andrew Stacey comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3552)

Andrew Stacey — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:07:26 -0800

The correct spelling is "nackaad" and it does, as Yemon says, mean "broken".

Yemon Choi comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3530)

Yemon Choi — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:04:49 -0800

@Emerton: don't know about the literal origins of the word. I suspect it is essentially a "dialect" version of knackered" - which in turn came from "horse knacker" and "knacker's yard", I always thought; the knacker's, rather than, erm, the knackers.

The meaning when I've heard it used is "bust" or "broken" through damage or wear (so much the same as the longer word): "that heater's knacked, man" and so forth. I just like the monosyllable better than "knackered", it seems to fit the mood of exhaustion...

But I fear we've gone rather off-topic ;)

Emerton comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3529)

Emerton — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:22:18 -0800

Dear Yemon,

Interesting. I thought, along with Sam, that you meant knackered. Being Australian, I would pronounce this in a way that would sound something like "knackuhd" to the American ear. (I think the technical term is that Australian English is non-rhotic.) How do you pronounce knacked? Is it just a variant spelling/pronunciation of knackered, or is it a different word?

I'm slightly reluctant to explain the literal meaning of knackered on this forum, but you probably know it. Does knacked have the same literal meaning?

Yemon Choi comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3528)

Yemon Choi — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:23:24 -0800

@Sam Nead: Unless you're going to correct me on points of Geordie slang, I think not ;)

Steve Huntsman comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3514)

Steve Huntsman — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:42:44 -0800

Regarding constants in physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

So the cosmological constant or the proton mass (for example) are quite small.

In chemistry: there are 1.31 × 10^19 atomic mass units per Planck mass. But this is just the physics question about why the proton mass is so small.

Anweshi comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3513)

Anweshi — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:46:51 -0800

@Pete Clark. The order of the monster is also an interesting constant. It is(from wikipedia)

246 · 320 · 59 · 76 · 112 · 133 · 17 · 19 · 23 · 29 · 31 · 41 · 47 · 59 · 71

which is, 808017424794512875886459904961710757005754368000000000

or approx. 8 · 10^53.

I meant to say, in physics/chemistry there are big constants, like the Avogadro number, or very small numbers, like the Gravitation constant.

Why initially math had only smaller constants, is a consequence of limted computational possibilities of the days in which these numbers took center focus. This was not the case in other sciences, which connected more directly with what is happening in nature.

Delving into such questions is clearly philosophy. Philosophy can embrace math, meta-math, sociology and math-science relationships. I think it is best addressed by a philosopher.

Sam Nead comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3512)

Sam Nead — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:22:58 -0800

Yemon Choi: I'm almost sure you want to say "knackered".

David Speyer comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3500)

David Speyer — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:02:56 -0800

Mildly against. I wouldn't vote to close it, but it strikes me as to vague to be interesting.

Yemon Choi comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3499)

Yemon Choi — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:32:10 -0800

Mildly against, mainly for the reasons/preferences fpqc states. Would try to write more but am currently knacked after giving a colloquium talk.

Pete L. Clark comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3498)

Pete L. Clark — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:27:03 -0800

I think very few working philosophers would regard this question as part of their bailiwick. To me, it seems like a mixture of mathematics, history and sociology.

I also find the question rather interesting, especially compared to many soft questions we've seen recently on MO. So I am mildly in favor of it being posted.

Some possible exceptions: -163, 691, 1729, 196883, 10^10^10^963

Ryan Budney comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3477)

Ryan Budney — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:28:52 -0800

Some named constants are pretty big, like the continuum, the various standard named ordinals, etc.

Anweshi comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3476)

Anweshi — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:10:01 -0800

There are bigger very interesting constants, like the order of the monster group. As computational power goes up, the magnitude of the constants also will go up.

By contrast, in physics, the fundamental constants are very big, or very small, etc..

This question is clearly philosophy. It is not research mathematics, which is the topic of MO.

Harry Gindi comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3474)

Harry Gindi — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:01:10 -0800

I wouldn't ask it. It seems really vague and discussion-y. I mean, maybe this post here will send some MO people over to xkcd to discuss it. However, I think that it should stay there.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "Is this question too philosophical for MO?" (3473)

Qiaochu Yuan — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:53:45 -0800

An interesting discussion has sprung up on the xkcd forums regarding the observation that most named mathematical constants tend to be small, usually not more than 10 and often between 0 and 1. There does not seem to be a good a priori reason for this, so I think it would be interesting to get some expert opinions on whether this is more about mathematicians' preferences on what constants deserve names or whether it actually reflects some meta-mathematical principle. For example, I think one can come up with good arguments why constants like e, pi, phi, and even things like the Feigenbaum constant ought to be small, but constants like the twin prime constant seem to me more about mathematicians' preferences.

But this question might be too philosophical. What do you think?