All posts by Charles Wells

The languages of mathematics

Conjecture: Mathematical English (ME) and the symbolic language of math (SL) are two distinct languages, not dialects of the same language.

I have asserted this in several places (Handbook, abstractmath.org) but I am not a linguist and it could be that linguists would disagree with this conjecture, or that the study of a mathematical corpus would reveal that another theoretical take on the situation would be more appropriate.

Some relevant points are listed below. I intend to expand on them in later posts.

1) Is ME a dialect of English or a register of English? Or does it have some other relationship to English?

2) ME appears to have several dialects or registers. One register is that used for what mathematicians call “formal proofs”. These are not formal in the sense of first order predicate logic, but their language is constrained, with the intent of making it easier to see the logical structure of the argument. Another register is that of “intuitive [or informal] explanations”. This is more like standard English.

3) The SL is clearly not a spoken language. It is a two-dimensional written language using symbols from English and other languages and some symbols native only to math. People do try to speak formulas aloud occasionally but this is well known to be difficult and can be done successfully only for fairly simple expressions.

4) There are other non-spoken languages such as ASL for example. I don’t know whether there are other non-spoken languages that are written. I don’t think dead languages count.

Send to Kindle

Mass nouns in math writing

Mass nouns seem to be rare in math writing. I have done a little poking around the math journals in JStor and have several observations to make. All are tentative observations based on a small amount of evidence (and thinking).

Space” as a mass noun

“Space” as a mass noun was common before WWII but is rare now. A search for “in space” (in quotes to make it the phrase that is searched for) gives mostly references to outer space and to very old papers, mostly before 1930. Conjecture: The disappearance of mass nouns in math writing is a consequence of the rise of structural thinking in math.

One recent paper where “space” occurs seemingly as a mass noun, in the title no less, is: F. W. Lawvere, Categories of Space and Quantity, in J. Echeverria et al. eds. The Space of Mathematics: Philosophical, Epistemological and Historical Explorations, DeGruyter, Berlin (1992), 14-30. However, the word “space” appears as a mass noun only once in the body of the paper (according to my hasty scan) and many times as a count noun. Anyway I am not sure it is being used as a count noun in the title. It is paired with “quantity”, which is surely an abstract noun, not a count noun.

Areas of math as mass nouns

Areas of math are commonly used as mass nouns, for example, “Using calculus, we see that the function has one maximum”, or “the result follows by straightforward algebra”. The language of math contains several sublanguages with different uses (symbolic language, rigorous language, “rich” language) and one of them is the metalanguage used for talking about doing math, as those examples surely are.

Mass nouns and plurals

In the paper La Palme Reyes M., Macnamara J. and G. E. Reyes (1999). Count nouns, mass nouns and their transformations: a unified category-theoretic semantics, in Language, logic and concepts: Bradford Book, MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma, 1999, pp 427-452, the authors say that plural nouns are mass nouns, in fact they are the free mass nouns corresponding to count nouns under the adjunction developed in that paper. (The Wikipedia article on mass nouns doesn’t seem to regard plurals of count nouns as mass nouns.) Now plurals are mass nouns with atoms (like “furniture” rather than like “water”). Of course, plurals occur all over the place in math writing. Conjecture: In rigorous math prose the only mass nouns that occur are plurals, or at least are mass nouns with atoms.

I am suspicious of the way Reyes, Macnamara and Reyes smush together mass nouns with atoms (furniture) and mass nouns without atoms (water). (“Atom” means in the lattice of parts. “Some of my furniture” can include a bed and two tables, but not the leg of a table. “Water” is treated in language as if it were infinitely divisible. Of course it really does have atoms in the physical sense.)

These two kinds of mass nouns behave differently in many ways. The most important is that plural nouns can refer to either distributive plurals or collective plurals. (“All groups have identities” is distributive, “the voters were in favor of the proposition” is collective.) I doubt that these different kinds of mass nouns constitute a natural grammatical class.

Send to Kindle

Comma Rule Found Dysfunctional (reposted)

One morning recently, I looked out the window and said, “The snow that fell last night has already melted.” When I spoke, I paused after “night”:

The snow that fell last night (pause) has already melted.

Most declarative sentences have a two-part structure: a noun phrase (“the snow that fell last night”) which is the subject, and a predicate (“has already melted”). Each of these two parts have further structure, but since the top-level structure consists of these two parts, it is natural to pause between them when the subject is complicated. This helps the listener to parse the sentence in real time.

However, when we write such sentences we must not do this:

The snow that fell last night, has already melted.

There is a rule about English writing that forbids putting a comma between the two main parts of a sentence. This rule is dysfunctional! It makes very complicated sentences hard to read:

The book with the pictures of the baby sits usually in the pink bedroom dresser.

“Baby sits” is a familiar phrase but it is confusing here because the two words are in different main parts of the sentence. You may have to back track while reading to make sense of it. Another famous example is

The horse raced past the barn fell.

Since the Powers That Be insist we mustn’t separate the two main constituents of a sentence by putting a comma between them, perhaps in our modern world of computers we could use color.

The snow that fell last night has already melted.
The book with the pictures of the baby sits usually in the pink bedroom dresser.
The horse raced past the barn fell.

Charles Wells
April, 2004

Send to Kindle

Start again

In gyre&gimble I will comment on ideas that occur to me, centering around math and language but not limited to that. This is a revival of a blog I ran a few years ago and I expect to repost here a few of the postings from the former incarnation.

Send to Kindle