Steve Schwartz replies to Leslie Bruder (who replied to Deryk Barker): >One thing that mathematics allows you to do is to predict the outcome >of a situation you haven't met before, related to the real world or not. >This is, of course, accomplished by building on a collection of theorems >and proofs. Mathematics may allow you to describe something you already >know (in that sense, EVERYTHING -- or nearly -- is math). But without >that predictive power, there's no real advantage to prefer a mathematical >description over a loose, verbal one, except that mathematics, as the >Queen of Sciences, enjoys the prestige of science among a non-scientific >community, whose only contact with science or mathematics comes at third- >or fourth-hand through engineering and technology. I would say that it's our undstanding of the physical laws of nature, not mathematics, that allows us to predict the outcome of a situation we haven't met before. Math gives us a clearer view of the patterns and correlations that exist in nature and in other places (even the arts). For example, we can use the formula F = ma to see the correlation between force, mass, and accleration. We could see much of the same by pushing a rock up hill, but our view of the forces at work wouldn't be as clear. Discussing this further: We can use F = ma to predict the outcome of new situations. Is it math or physics or both? Mike