# Off Topic > The Water Cooler >  >  Mathematics is NOT a Universal Language

## Jonmo1

I say that Mathematics is no more universal than any other language like English, Spanish, French, German, or ANY other language.

I recently came across a meme on Facebook that posed a simple math question and asked the readers to solve it.

2+2*2+2

For this rant, it doesnt matter what the correct answer is (8). And Im not actually posing this question to this forum.
What matters is that not everyone gives the same answer.

I noticed that the responses were split about 50/50 between the answers of
2+(2*2)+2 = 8
And
((2+2)*2)+2 = 10
A small fraction even answered like this
(2+2)*(2+2) = 16

So I posted my opinion, If Mathematics is the only Universal Language, then I think we are all screwed. This kicked off a lengthy discussion with a few friends and family.

I read up a little and found basically that Math is considered Universal because 2+2=4 no matter whom in the world youre talking to. I argued that this is clearly not the case when the problem is more complicated like the posted example 2+2*2+2. A vast majority of people give different answers. The usual response is Well if someone gives the wrong answer, then they are not speaking Math.

Well, that is true of ANY language, say English for example. If I say Im Hungry in English, then that means I need food. No matter whom Im talking to. As long as the speaker and listener are both speaking English. If I say Im Hungry and you think Im saying "the sky is blue", then you are not speaking English.

I then argued that if the language must be learned, and it has rules that must be followed (Like multiply before add), then that language is NOT Universal. Clearly NOT everyone has learned it the same way. The response is That is true of any language, All languages must be learned.

Well, thats exactly my point.

To me, calling a language Universal means that I can walk up to a complete stranger and start speaking it. And that person would understand me. That is clearly not a true condition of Math as a language.

So in conclusion, I say that Mathematics is no more universal than any other language like English, Spanish, French, and German etc. 



Cross Posted (not sure it matters in this forum, but just following rules)
http://www.mrexcel.com/forum/lounge-...-language.html

----------


## AliGW

I disagree. The fact that many of the respondents added their own 'punctuation' to the mathematical problem presented does not mean that they don't speak the same language, just that they have chosen to interpret it differently. How should this be punctuated?





> A woman without her man is nothing.



We are both speaking English, but you probably think that it should read, "A woman, without her man, is nothing,", whereas I would prefer, "A woman: without her, man is nothing."

For what it's worth, though, I do not believe that any 'punctuation' should have been added to the problem to solve it, and thus I agree that the solution should have been 8.  :Wink:

----------


## Jonmo1

> The fact that many of the respondents added their own 'punctuation' to the mathematical problem



People add the punctuation just to demonstrate how they achieved their answers.
The problem was presented without the punctuation, the punctuation is a product of the responders thought process in solving the posted problem.

----------


## Glenn Kennedy

"A woman: without her, man is nothing."

I wonder.. did I marry your sister?  That's certainly what "she who must be obeyed" thinks...  

FWIW, I think Maths is the Universal language; however to understand it you must have been (successfully) taught its rules.  And the answer IS 8...

----------


## Jonmo1

Your example phrase proves my point.
We are not both speaking the same language if we interpret that phrase differently.
Which is the argument used in favor of math being universal.  If you get the wrong answer, then you're not speaking math.

Therefore Math is no more universal then English.

----------


## Ace_XL

I guess the universality of Mathematics as a language stems from the fact that everyone (and I mean everyone!) uses Math at some level from infants to arguably, even animals. Some use it more than others, as is true for all languages, but its the only 'language' (or is it?!) that has universal use. It might not always be used correctly as you so lucidly point out in your post.

Now, the same cannot be said of other languages, be it English, Spanish, French, German etc.

Food for thought: Is Love a universal language?

----------


## AliGW

> People add the punctuation just to demonstrate how they achieved their answers.
> The problem was presented without the punctuation, the punctuation is a product of the responders thought process in solving the posted problem.



Yes, but they misinterpreted the problem by adding the unnecessary punctuation and by not knowing the hierarchical rules that the operators follow. 

I teach languages, and you see the same lack of knowledge all the time when people write things like, "The man who's king is dead," when they really mean, "The man whose king is dead". They ARE writing English, albeit not very well!

----------


## Jonmo1

I would say that the only 'TRULY' Universal language is 'Body Language'

Isn't that how we all actually 'learn' our first language in the first place as infants?
Your mother (or whoever is in the room) gives a Nod or Shakes her head or smiles/frowns etc. to indicate Yes or No.

----------


## Jonmo1

> Yes, but they misinterpreted the problem by adding the unnecessary punctuation and by not knowing the hierarchical rules that the operators follow.



That's my point.  Not everyone speaks the language the same way.  Therefor it's NOT universal.

----------


## AliGW

> I would say that the only 'TRULY' Universal language is 'Body Language'
> 
> Isn't that how we all actually 'learn' our first language in the first place as infants?
> Your mother (or whoever is in the room) gives a Nod or Shakes her head or smiles/frowns etc. to indicate Yes or No.



No, it's not: in some countries, a shake of the head means 'yes' and a nod means 'no'!!!

----------


## AliGW

> That's my point.  Not everyone speaks the language the same way.  Therefor it's NOT universal.



It is: we still understand each other most of the time, even though there are sometimes occasions where misinterpretation occurs.

----------


## Jonmo1

Then there is no such thing as a Universal Language.
If it must be learned, and it is not 'common' to everyone, then it's not universal.

----------


## AliGW

> Then there is no such thing as a Universal Language.
> If it must be learned, and it is not 'common' to everyone, then it's not universal.



Do you understand absolutely every single word in the English language? Does this mean that you are not completely fluent in English? Of course it doesn't! You are looking at this through very black and white scientific eyes, but where language and communication are concerned, there are many shades of grey.  :Smilie: 

Even maths has to be learned, but it is still universal.

----------


## MrShorty

Reminds me of this situation, where there is not even a universal consensus on how a math sentence like a/bc+d should be read: http://www.excelforum.com/groups/mat...perations.html

----------


## Jonmo1

> You are looking at this through very black and white scientific eyes



Isn't that the way it should be done?
Wasn't it Scientists and Mathematicians that declared it to be universal in the first place?

----------


## AlKey

Hmm...

Mathematics is NOT a Universal Language. It can't express Love.

----------


## AliGW

> Isn't that the way it should be done?
> Wasn't it Scientists and Mathematicians that declared it to be universal in the first place?



The problem is that you are trying to compare apples and pears.  :Wink: 

I still disagree with your first statement, though: just because some respondents misinterpreted the sum in question does not mean that maths is not or cannot be universal. You don't have to throw the universal baby out with the syntactically-challenged bathwater!!!

----------


## Ace_XL

> Hmm...
> 
> Mathematics is NOT a Universal Language. It can't express Love.



I beg to disagree..

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...d89c8cc05f.jpg

----------


## AliGW

Your post does not comply with form rule #8 about cross-posting:

http://www.mrexcel.com/forum/lounge-...-language.html

LOL!!!  :Wink:  :Wink:  :Wink:  :Wink:  :Wink:

----------


## Jonmo1

I didn't post a "Question", I posted an Opinion.

----------


## Jonmo1

If Math is Universal, why does my computer get it wrong?
On a Windows based computer, open up the calculator application.
Enter the equation
Press 2
Press +
Press 2
Press *
Press 2
Press +
Press 2
Press =

Shows 10.

----------


## MrShorty

Re: #21: Because computers (and calculators in particular) do not speak "math", they speak calculator (or whatever other programming language they are using). In "normal" calculator language, expressions are simply evaluated in the order they are entered. It is up to the user to "translate" the math sentence into a "calculator" sentence.

Interestingly, if you change your Windows calculator to "scientific" mode (View menu in my Win7 version), the same sequence will result in 8, because the "scientific calculator" dialect has some rudimentary sense of algebraic order of operations that the "normal" calculator dialect does not have.

Math may not be as "universal" as we are often led to believe. As you say, the math community must still come to some kind of consensus agreement of what a sentence means, what "words" to use to describe a concept, and so on. How universal it is, I don't know. I know that, amongst some of the other "language barriers" I see on this forum, I often wish that users would post their questions using math/algebra sentences because, while I may struggle to understand their halting English, I would have less difficulty understanding a math sentence, because I expect that we would use the same math sentence to describe the problem, independent of our ability to express that in English.

----------


## Jonmo1

> Re: #21: Because computers (and calculators in particular) do not speak "math", they speak calculator (or whatever other programming language they are using). In "normal" calculator language, expressions are simply evaluated in the order they are entered. It is up to the user to "translate" the math sentence into a "calculator" sentence.



Thank you, that further supports my point.

When asked why 2 different people might give different answers to the same mathematical problem, they say "Well, one of the 2 parties isn't speaking math"
That is a true statement regarding ANY language.

----------


## Pepe Le Mokko

Definition of "Universal" in the Collins dictionary :"(esp of a language) capable of being used and understood by all".

By stating that it should be understood without  learning it in some way, you add a condition to this definition, therefore creating a definition of your own. When one says that Math is a universal language they use the definition of "universal" found in the Dictionaries, not yours.

Also, it seems to me ( my mother tongue is French) that " capable" means " able to", which implies that there is no obligation in understanding it without learning/preparation.

When speaking about maths, the word universal also relates to values, that are the same to everyone. Pi or e or log2 ( base10) have them same value for everyone ( probably in the Universe as  for example Pi is found to calculate circles but also in quantum mechanics).

A for the word " language" Collins defines it ( among others ) as "a system for the expression of thoughts, feelings, etc, by the use of spoken sounds or conventional symbols". This definition contains the word "system" which implies that all those speaking that language have agreed to the " system".

As for the way calculators work as it does not "speak Math"...

----------


## Doc.AElstein

Cross Posted here:
http://www.mrexcel.com/forum/lounge-...ml#post4383240
http://www.excelforum.com/the-water-...ml#post4276446




> I say that Mathematics is no more universal than any other language............ like English, Spanish, French, and German etc.







> The fact that different people get different answers is because they are not following the rules.  Of course it needs to be learned.  We are not born with the full knowledge of any method of communication, or have any in-born knowledge of "rules"........ A mathematician in Germany who speaks no English could communicate in "mathematics" to an English speaking mathematician who knows no German.  That is how it is universal.



Just a small German / English contribution...

Sometime it can help get over language differences ( non universalability ) to go the extra mile, adding extra, not always necessary steps. But that can irritate those that do not need the extra Info.    Parenthesis can both have a similar Mathematical significance as well as generally being interpreted as indicating an order..  Helps to bridge the gap, maybe make it a “ bit more Universal “
So, maybe write always:
2  + _(  2 * 2  )_  +  2
As Jonmo1 reported half the people thought that anyway, most of the rest would get the meaning of the Parenthesis.
___o00o__`(_)`___o00o___
2  + __(  2 * 2  )__         +  2


Happy New Year
So what I am saying,  if you have the time, go the extra mile to explain it a bit clearer. There are no easy way to bring together differences in Languages and cultural ways of thinking built up over the years.... But it can help..  To Work together to help make it ( more ) universal

Alan

----------


## Jonmo1

This actually might be the best response I've seen.





> Some use it more than others, as is true for all languages, but its the only 'language' (or is it?!) that has universal use. It might not always be used correctly as you so lucidly point out in your post.



Now that I can agree with.  Anyone/Everyone will have a need to use Math.  That makes sense.

I still think Universal is the wrong word for it though....I'm pondering what the correct word would be..

----------


## JBeaucaire

Maybe "Global".

----------


## Jonmo1

Maybe also "Basic" or "Common"

----------


## Crooza

I agree with the comments regarding interpretation. Although we all learn mathematics as children we interpret language and maths differently. I agree the correct answer is 8 but people who don't apply the rules won't always come to the same conclusion.

Interestingly we all interpreted the '*' for a Multiplication sign which most of us would have been taught as children to use a 'x' but due to our programming backgrounds we see the * and 'know' what you meant anyway.

----------


## snb

I think you confuse your ideosyncratic definition of 'universal' with 'unequivocal'.
Although a language can be used everywhere it doesn't inherently exclude fuzziness or multiple interpretation.
For instance 8+8 can result in 10 in a hexadecimal system.
So 8+8=10 can be correct in that system but wrong in a decimal system.
The statement 8+8=10 needs the addition of the numbersystem you are using.
The same applies to your example in which a decimal system was an implicit assumption.  

But I see no benefit whatsoever in the assertion 'math is not a universal (all implicit ideosyncrasies discvarded) language'.

----------


## JBeaucaire

From the interwebs:




> There is no simpler, more fundamental way of expressing the universe than through the basic ideas of equality and inequality, which in turn lead to the concept of quantification, which lead to the concept of value and numbers (to expressed levels of inequality), and once we have numbers, the rest of mathematics seems to bloom from all around us. But again, the system we use to describe mathematics and mathematics itself are two completely different things.



(source)

----------


## Norie

Define 'Mathematics'.

----------


## zbor

If you hear on phone an alien who speaks English and knows math but you never saw each other how to describe him difference between left and right?

----------


## Richard Buttrey

> Reminds me of this situation, where there is not even a universal consensus on how a math sentence like a/bc+d should be read: http://www.excelforum.com/groups/mat...perations.html



...even  more basic there's no consensus on on the term 'maths' itself. Why you ex colonials across the pond constantly use 'math' completely defeats me.  :Smilie: 

Happy new year!

----------


## zbor

> Then there is no such thing as a Universal Language.
> If it must be learned, and it is not 'common' to everyone, then it's not universal.



And it's also must have starting point with an axiom or postulate (a premise or starting point of reasoning).

----------


## Norie

What is this 'math'?

----------


## JBeaucaire

> Define 'Mathematics'.



The movie CONTACT did a wonderful job of demonstrating that even though "math/numbers" is a universal concept (equal/nonequal or TRUE/FALSE), the method of expressing those values is not.  So the aliens first had to provide a primer where we could learn the initial basic mathematic construct..... TRUE/FALSE.  Once they had that, an entire language of mathematics developed in another galaxy could be understood by us, up to and including the engineering applications of said learning.

So, at it's most basic:
1) An examination of equalities and inequalities expressed with numerical symbols (mine)
2) the science of numbers, quantities, and shapes and the relations between them (Merriam-Webster)

----------


## Doc.AElstein

> I think you confuse your ideosyncratic definition of 'universal' with 'unequivocal'.
> Although a language can be used everywhere it doesn't inherently exclude fuzziness or multiple interpretation.
> For instance 8+8 can result in 10 in a hexadecimal system.
> So 8+8=10 can be correct in that system but wrong in a decimal system.
> The statement 8+8=10 needs the addition of the number system you are using.
> The same applies to your example in which a decimal system was an implicit assumption.  ..
> But I see no benefit whatsoever in the assertion 'math is not a universal (all implicit ideosyncrasies discvarded) language'.



Sounded good, or so i thought...
http://www.mrexcel.com/forum/lounge-...ml#post4383647 




> Mathematics is not a universal language, because it is not a language at all.........



Mist!  ( as we say in German - just to qualify an implicit of mine, which i really should not have done in the spirit of keeping universal, sorry ), an academic came in......Hmm  ...  I think am just going to use a lot more_____spaces____ and brackets, and keep off the implicits....
*Alan*

P.s. can you define discvarded.. I missed that one? Or is it like ideosyncratic ..  an indication of, ( sort of implying ) bad spelling, that is to say the Implicit of a spelling checker should be used ( Just checking if I know what implicit means ) 
LOL :Smilie:

----------


## AliGW

> Sounded good, or so i thought...
> http://www.mrexcel.com/forum/lounge-...ml#post4383647 
> 
> Mist!  ( as we say in German - just to qualify an implicit of mine, which i really should not have done in the spirit of keeping universal, sorry ), an academic came in......Hmm  ...  I think am just going to use a lot more_____spaces____ and brackets, and keep off the implicits....
> *Alan*
> 
> P.s. can you define discvarded.. I missed that one? Or is it like ideosyncratic ..  an indication of, ( sort of implying ) bad spelling, that is to say the Implicit of a spelling checker should be used ( Just checking if I know what implicit means ) 
> LOL



Did you perhaps mean "expletive" (i.e. swear word)? I think all the Mistzweig has been taken down around here, now that Christmas is over.  :Wink:

----------


## Doc.AElstein

Hi Ali,




> *Did you perhaps mean "expletive" (i.e. swear word)?* I think all the Mistzweig has been taken down .......



*yes i did,* -I am not sure why i did not then give it in English in the brackets ( Parenthesis, Parens ) in the spirit of keeping it more Global / Universal/ Universally Understandable, or wotever ( Whatever ). I think it was a mistake not to do that. Maybe I unconsciously “did it as an Implicit” rather than an “Explicit” as the “explicit” version may have been censored anyway, leaving it again to be “implied” what I meant.
Sorry for the confusion. Nothing to do with Xmas deco. (Decorations ).  ...( ..I implied that was what you meant? ….   Let me check…..
_…*.Oh Mist* ( Poo ), again, - maybe I missed the point again .. I could not google anything on Mistzweig…. … or , maybe you were implying Mistelzweig, ( mistletoe ), so using the same Implicit as snb (that is to say the Implicit of a spelling checker should be used  )
?
*LOL    Happy New Year*

Alan

P.s. 

I keep them up a long time ( ( Xmas  (Christmas ) ) )deco (  ( Xmas  (Christmas ) ) Decorations )  ( most do around here, - ( they go by either 6th January or some time quite a while later , (  depending in Religious preferences ) ) )

P.P.s
Mist : Literal translation is manure. Used commonly in a similar situation to the following in English or American:  Poo, Oh Poo,  Crap,    Dang,   F##k ( Please apply Implicit most likely stored in your brain for that last one )

----------


## ChemistB

This reminds me of a similar philosophical argument



> Was mathematics invented or discovered?



If it was invented, then I think there is some flexibility as to what it is or can be.  If it was discovered, then I feel it is immutable.  If I have 2 children and you have 3 children and each child has 3 children, then how many grandchildren do we have?
= 2 * 3 + 3 * 3
someone might read that as = 2 * ( 3 + 3) * 3 = 36 but that doesn't change the fact that we have 15 grandchildren.  The math is universal.  the interpretation is not.  Perhaps it should not be called a "language"

Going with this, the language of math is the symbols that we apply to express mathematical ideas.  These can be misinterpreted or interpreted based on certain premises (are we working inside euclidean geometry?, in hexidecimal?).  Based on that "The language of math is not universal."  The underlying math, however, is immutable and therefore universal.  ("Math" is the same wherever you go in the universe).  So Math as a language is universal?  

"Let's eat grandma" or "Let's eat, grandma"  Punctuation saves lives.

----------


## ChemistB

Okay, after some thought.  Language is a means of communicating, either through sounds or symbols (oral or written).  So the language of math is not math (which is immutable) but the way we communicate concepts of mathematics.  Based on the examples given in this thread, it is a taught language and therefore not universal.

However (there's always a however), it would be, IMHO, the language most easily taught (at least on some level) to an alien race anywhere in the universe (there's that universal again).   An alien race may not see as we see (red is red, blue is blue) or feel as we feel (anger, love, pain) but there should be mathematical concepts that we could exchange (Pi, logs, number systems).  

So there is no universal language but the language of math is most likely to be understood universally.

----------


## Richard Buttrey

> An alien race may not see as we see (red is red, blue is blue) or feel as we feel (anger, love, pain) but there should be mathematical concepts that we could exchange (Pi, logs, number systems).  
> 
> So there is no universal language but the language of math is most likely to be understood universally.



Mmmm. Not entirely sure even that is a given. Particularly if a multiverse is included in the definition of universal. Who's to say that our laws of physics are the same everywhere and are immutable even in their own universe. 

Do we really understand the physics that apply on say the event horizon of a black hole? In curved space time where a circle is not in a flat plane is pi really 3.1415925...? etc

----------


## ChemistB

I believe most physicists are in agreement on how physics works in this universe, whether it's on an event horizon or in curved space.  Once we enter multiverses (which is gaining more and more credibility) all bets are off.

----------


## Ace_XL

> Once we enter multiverses (which is getting more and more credibility) all bets are off.



So uni-versality of Maths holds, multi-versality is anybody's guess..  :Cool:  :Wink:  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Aardigspook

All written language contains some element of interpretation.  If I were to ask the question '10 + 10 = ?' I bet almost everyone would answer '20'.  But what if I gave the same question to a group of programmers?  Would I then get the answer '100' from some?
_Hint - there are 10 types of people in this world: those who know binary and those who don't._
What's the square root of 4?  Hands up how many people said '2 or -2'  :Wink: 

So, for the purposes of this discussion, I think we can say that the answer to a mathematical question is universal _providing_ the context of how it is presented is understood.  (Regarding the square root of 4, if you're working with lengths, it can only be the first, but if you're doing theoretical maths...)
Once you know the 'rules', the language of maths is universal.

_As an aside, I often see 'PEMDAS' for the order of operations, but I learned 'BODMAS' (Brackets, Of, Divide, Multiply, Add, Subtract), both at school and university, so even what we might regard as 'obvious' because 'that's what's taught in school' isn't always..._

----------


## Jonmo1

On a separate (but now seemingly similar) topic,

I've always found the science community's claim that life isn't possible on certain/most other planets in our galaxy (or wherever) to be way out of line.
That's pretty arrogant, to think that the way life exists on the 3rd Rock From The Sun is the only possible way for life to exist anywhere else in the galaxy.
Maybe some other type of life actually breathes Sulfuric Acid, or doesn't actually need Oxygen or Water the way we do.

Perhaps the only thing they should say is that "Life, _as we know it on Earth_, is not possible on planet xxx"

----------


## Richard Buttrey

> _As an aside, I often see 'PEMDAS' for the order of operations, but I learned 'BODMAS' (Brackets, Of, Divide, Multiply, Add, Subtract), both at school and university, so even what we might regard as 'obvious' because 'that's what's taught in school' isn't always..._



Oh frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!

A real blast from the past that I've not heard mentioned for nigh on 58 years. 
And I thought BODMAS was just some mnemonic invented by my first form Maths Master at my Midlands Grammar school in the late fifties.

You've made my day  :Smilie:

----------


## joe31623

Oops ...wrong post_____________________

----------


## Aardigspook

> Oh frabjous day! Calloo! Callay!
> A real blast from the past that I've not heard mentioned for nigh on 58 years. 
> And I thought BODMAS was just some mnemonic invented by my first form Maths Master at my Midlands Grammar school in the late fifties.
> You've made my day



You're welcome  :Smilie: 
Maybe it's not in use now, but it was at my primary school in the 70s and was mentioned (with the assumption that we knew what it meant) when I went to university in the late 80s.

----------


## ChemistB

Never heard of BODMAS, must be a UK thing.  How does "Of" fit in?   Power of?

----------


## DBY

Brackets; Of; Division; Multiplication; Addition; Subtraction - is how I was taught the order of operations. I guess it's not universal if everyone doesn't follow the same rules or chooses not to follow them, I have an elderly electronic calculator that happily ignores the BODMAS rule.  :Confused:

----------


## Aardigspook

'Of' is 'powers of' / 'roots of' - equivalent to the 'exponents' in PEMDAS, which means the same thing with different letters
*B*rackets *O*f *D*ivide *M*ultiply *A*dd *S*ubtract
*P*arentheses *E*xponents *M*ultiply *D*ivide *A*dd *S*ubtract

With both, obviously (?), D & M and A & S are equivalent, so are done from left to right - at least that's what I was taught in school... :Smilie:

----------

