
Boost : 
From: Jonathan Franklin (franklin.jonathan_at_[hidden])
Date: 20080226 16:15:51
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:09 PM, John Phillips <
phillips_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Johan Råde wrote:
>
> > Don't you think a Bessel function is somehow more "mathematical" than
> the isnormal function?
> >
> > Johan
> >
>
> No, but that may be a function of my personal view of mathemmatics.
> isnormal is a set classification function, and as such has a long and
> important history in mathematics. It isn't what most nonmathematicians
> think of when they consider mathematical functions, but many very
> important mathematical advances that happened before the advent of
> computers were based around such classification functions. isnormal in
> specific isn't a classification rule that I expect would have been used
> before digital computers, but the underlying model of functions that
> trace what is and is not included in a set is an old one in mathematics.
>
Excellent points, though I'll refrain from making any judgement calls as to
what is more "mathematical". I know too many different flavors of
mathematician. Is Analysis more "mathematical" than Combinatorics, or
<insert your mathematical discipline here>?
;)
Jon
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk