Mathematics In The Modern World Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

Metaphysics is sometimes divided into two sub-fields:ontology, the study of what exists.epistemology: the study of how we know what we know.(Epistemology is sometimes considered separately though.)Physics is typically a source of ontology, though it doesn't have to be. Reductionist physicists have convinced many of us that leptons and quarks are the fundamental building blocks of matter, and perhaps that mass, energy and spacetime are the only real entities. *Physics is closely wrapped up with epistemology too, because the social practices within physics determine which theories and experiments are true. The epistemology implicit in physics determines what counts as a proof, for instance.You can deny that there is a relationship between physics and metaphysics, but that might require asserting that there is no such thing as ontology or epistemology. I'm not sure what this would mean exactly. Alternatively, you could say that physics is not concerned with what exists or how we decide what exists. I am sure plenty of physicists would dispute this quite vociferously.Physics and metaphysics are closely intertwined in the modern world, but not so physicists and 'metaphysicians'. Working physicists don't have to concern themselves with theories about what exists or how they come to know, because they can just inherit definitions of existence and of proof from their supervisors, or from famous scientists and philosophers. There are many such uncritical scientists, but they tend to be the ones who get most worked up when metaphysical debates crop up at cocktail parties! ;) This is because they realize they do have some 'ontological commitments', but haven't always made them explicit.Perhaps more rare are people who think in pure instrumental terms. They might claim that they are only studying how appearances or observations or measurables relate to each other, with no concern for whether they are real or not. I still suspect that instrumentalists still have to have standards of knowledge, so they implicitly stand on some epistemological foundation, even if they don't question it.Some people confuse the word metaphysics with mysticism or with philosophical speculation. They want to be able to say "physics talks about reality" and "this is not mere metaphysical speculation". Such people are implicitly saying that they wish there was no debate about what reality is in the first place, and how we go about discovering truths about it. This sort of anti-metaphysics is basically anti-debate.____Further reading:* A fascination example of an ongoing ontological debate within physics concerns the meaning of the word "fundamental". Reductionist physicists think that only subatomic particles are fundamental (or that only micro-level physical laws are fundamental), whereas emergentist physicists are willing to consider wider notions of what is fundamental. See these answers for more on the topic of emergence:Why are there so few (if any) popular science books on condensed matter physics compared to popular science books on quantum mechanics and relativity?Complexity: Can emergent phenomena be described mathematically?Also see: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Emergent PropertiesThis also looks relevant:"In the last few decades one of the most publicized controversies in fundamental physics has been the argument between condensed matter theory (CMT) physicists such as P.W. Anderson, Robert Laughlin and David Pines on the one hand, and particle physicists such as Steven Weinberg and Leonard Susskind on the other over which theoretical framework is in the best position to unify physics and lead it into the twenty first century"From: When Super-Theories Collide: A Brief History of the Emergence/Reduction Battles between Particle Physics and Condensed Matter Theory [pdf]

Rather broad question, but here are a few. More can be found on the site. Internet Archive Search: mathematics[]=year%3A%222015%22&and[]=subject%3A%22Algebraic+Geometry%22And hereMATHEMATICS IN THE MODERN WORLD

I've been hearing that Sanskrit is a "scientific" language and that it is "most ideal for programming computers in" for twenty years now. It's a little confusing because people who speak Sanskrit don't go about saying, "If (Sunlight) {Turn off lights}." Sanskrit is a fully formed, normal language, like any other language spoken throughout the world. The fact that it is an archaic language, no longer spoken by the masses, seems to have led to some major misconceptions about the mystical nature of this language that is easy to learn in schools and is only ever heard in Hindu hymns.Almost all of this misconception stemmed from two major things: the study of linguistics based off of a Sanskrit work by Panini, and a 1985 paper written by Rick Briggs, Knowledge Representation in Sanskrit and Artificial Intelligence .Panini lived somewhere between 6th to 4th century BC and wrote the first known comprehensive text on descriptive linguistics. This work is called the Ashthadhyayi and consists of over 3,500 grammatical constructs and rules in Sanskrit. His work effectively transitioned Sanskrit from its old form (Vedic Sanskrit) to the language we know now. Today's Sanskrit, known as Classical Sanskrit, was widely spoken and was quite different from its parent, the older Vedic Sanskrit.Panini's work has been very influential in the study of modern linguistics, owing to its incredible detail in dealing with grammar (morphology, root, allomorphs), phonology (phonemes, prosody), phonetics, semantics, and syntax. His work is often claimed to describe Sanskrit, as a language, completely and absolutely. Ashtadhyaya used very technical metalanguage (lexicon, morphology, syntax) and had algorithms that could churn out well-formed words. In a sense, this work is similar to the computer language structures we have today: metasyntax is used for both natural languages and programming languages. These algorithms essentially described Sanskrit (or any other language) as blocks, having sentences and ideas that were formed by grouping and structuring independent clauses together: the basis of both natural languages as well as programming languages.Eg: John, having seen Jack's blue bat, painted his bat blue.This sentence can be broken up into: John saw Jack's bat. Jack's bat was blue. So John painted his bat blue too.person John, Jack;color johnBatColor, jackBatColor;if (JohnSawJackBat = true){johnBatColor=jackBatColor;}The combined field of study of mathematics as a language, computer programming languages, and natural human languages is called Formal Language studies. Formal Language uses a concept called Context-Free Grammar. CFG essentially produces a mathematical algorithm for generating language blocks mentioned above by describing how the smaller blocks come together.John (having seen (Jack's (bat (blue in color))), painted (bat (his own)), (same color as Jack's)).Or more simply, we can look at the most common example used:Full Address = (House Number OR Apartment Number OR P.O. Box Number) + Street Name + (Area Name if applicable) + City + State + Country + Pin/Zip.This is similar to BODMAS/BEDMAS operations in mathematics:2 + 3 * 4 /5 is actually 2+ (3 * (4/5)).In 1950s, Noam Chomsky, then a professor at MIT, combined linguistics and mathematics, and formalized CFGs, taking a lead from Panini's work. He called it Phrase Structure Grammar. CFGs were then introduced as block structures into programming languages, with Algol, by John Backus. Backus described the syntax of Algol using Chomsky's context-free grammar. This was called the Backus Normal Form. A few years later, Peter Naur improved on the BNF by reducing the size of the massive character set used by Backus, renaming BNF to Backus-Naur Form. Backus-Naur Form is still in heavy use today. (Incidentally, many scientists had proposed the name Panini-Backus Form as Panini had come up with constructs independent of, and much much earlier than, Backus or Naur).Coming to Briggs's paper on AI, he claimed that Sanskrit was basically much simpler than English in terms of sentence construction: a fact that is unequivocally true. His work was primarily on the field of artificial intelligence, specifically to program machines to understand and construct human languages. Briggs said that Panini's work could be a direct reference to try and have computers understand Sanskrit. However, the reduced number of words forming a sentence does not take away from the complexity of the sentence and the ideas expressed by it. The fact still remains that the larger reason Briggs chose to use Sanskrit instead of any other language was because of the ready availability of Panini's work, which stands undisputed (partly because it's so ancient, and partly because Sanskrit isn't widely spoken today). Chomsky's and Backus's have faced criticisms and have been rejected by certain schools. Briggs wanted to build something ground-up and use a detailed, existing work for reference.TL;DR:Sanskrit is an ordinary language, but Panini worked extensively on it, because, well, that's the language they all primarily spoke back then. This work led to further research by Chomsky on linguistics, and Backus and Naur on programming language constructs, all of which were modeled on Panini's work on Sanskrit. Rick Briggs, who might or might not have been from NASA, proposed a paper to develop an AI mechanism to resemble Panini's work closer than Chomsky's, but that led him nowhere. That's really all there is to it.NASA did not beam Sanskrit into space because it is technical or symmetric. Sanskrit does not have grammar that is completely non-confusing. Computers cannot be programmed in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is not the only Perfect Language in the entire world. And Sanskrit is most definitely not the oldest language in the world or the parent of languages spoken throughout the world today.Ignorance breeds supremacy.Further reading:Briggs's paper was written for Association for the Advancement of Artificial IntelligenceFull PDF of the paper can be found here: Knowledge Representation in Sanskrit and Artificial Intelligence I have to say, it's quite fascinating and crazy at the same time!Chomsky Normal Form: Page on clemson.eduDevelopment of Algol: The American side of the development of Algol(Hoax, clickbait) Scientists at NASA claiming Sanskrit is perfect: NASA scientists hail Sanskrit as the only perfect languagePseudoscientific mumbo jumbo on Sanskrit and parts of brains and things like that: Jeopardy Computer, Sanskrit, Artificial IntelligenceZomg NASA to beam Sanskrit into space and this is confirmed on NASA website because American kids are learning Sanskrit from childhood: NASA to echo Sanskrit in space, website confirms its Mission SanskritPosts and questions on Quora about Sanskrit and NASA (sigh):Does NASA use Sanskrit as part of the work it does in the field of AI?What is an opinion of NASA on the Sanskrit language?Is Sanskrit compulsory in NASA for AI (Artificial Intelligence) research?Does NASA require its scientists to learn Sanskrit?Why do people claim Sanskrit to be a scientific language even though Rick Brigg's paper on 'Sanskrit and Artificial Intelligence (AI)' was rejected by NASA?Why in India is learning of Sanskrit tagged as communal while on the other hand NASA calls it as one of the most scientific language for space programmes?Is sanskrit is similar to programming language?When people claim that Sanskrit is a computer friendly language, what do they mean?Why is Sanskrit considered suitable for computer programming languages?Great Indian CivilizationNasa Uses Sanskrit To Program Artificial Intelligence