[FOM] Permutations and Rearrangements
binarychem at botsnet.bw
Fri May 22 05:13:38 EDT 2009
As far as the Maths Department is concerned, a Permutation IS a
Rearrangement. As the late Prof Niven exclaimed in exasperation, "Why can't
you bloody chemists stick to one convention!"
And yes, I quite understand that you cannot perform the one operation
without implicitly influencing the other isomorph. The problem is that
there are four ways of defining this bijection. It is these defined
non_commutative relationships that are important in the laboratory.
Let me give a History. I am a chemical technician that interfaces between
people and machines, and I carry around a Propositional_Calculus_Toolbox
suitably modified to especially handle non_commutative operations when
solving a variety of problems.
Philosophically this means I am biased in favour of combinatorial and
constructive mathematics. It is simply not good enough to tell me that a
Tool is available to do a Job, but that nobody can supply it. My Universals
are defined in the context of Clausal Form Logic. This limited vision could
be classed as using a microscope in logic.
Of course the question could be raised, "What has this to do with the
Foundations of Mathematics?". The problem arise in the difference between
Ontological_meaning [Chemists and Physicists] and Epistemological_semantics
[Logicians and Mathematicians] when they try to communicate among each
other. In a sense I have rephrased the question with which I began.
More information about the FOM