What constitutes an "abuse" of mathematics?

Post Reply New Topic

I have seen people accuse others of "abusing" mathematics. I am a bit unclear as to what is meant by an abuse of mathematics. What comes to mind is something like "pseudomathematics." But how does one describe "pseudomathematics"?

My best thought regards statistics.

Any honest statistics teacher would tell you that they mean very little because you can make statistics say most anything based on how you manipulate the numbers.

Mathematically, the statistics are accurate. Logically, it involves misrepresenting the numbers to tell a story that is different from the truth.

One way you could think of it is arguing "climate change" with a graph showing data going back only 20 years where one going back 200 or 2,000 years would indicate a very different pattern. The numbers/data is right, but how you use it is fallacious.

Abuse in mathematics? rooting minus one sounds pretty painful. It is probably a sin too, or am I going off at a tangent?

It has been said that a man once drowned while crossing a stream of an average depth of six inches.

Misinterpreting or misstating a mathematical result.

Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem is one of the most abused mathematical results.

ruveyn

Repeatedly trolling WoW trade channel with variations upon 6 - 6 x 6 = 0

Although I did respond by abusing WoW players with Reverse Polish Notation

He probably did it in a log cabin while eating a bit of pi. He probably just does it to help him relax while the little toddler next door was reciting his "a b c d e"'s

Certainly mathematical fallacies would count as abuse.
Also, I would nominate words that have strict math meanings that people use in a non-math context. For example, when two things are similar on the surface and someone calls them "isomorphic."

I've to agree with statistics abusing mathematics with misleading data and graphs.

Prime example: Al Gore saying he's got millions of years of data showing CO2 levels correlated to temperature, and then assuming CO2 causes that temperature because of that statistical 'evidence', while completely ignoring that solar thermal output over that time may also be a factor, and we have no data on that before 1970, because we had no way to measure it seperately from global temperature, not having launched any satellites before then.

Result is, people who care about the environment (and can understand this statistical proof thing), don't care for Al Gore, because he doesn't give any actual proof, while trying to champion the movement due to his position. All he did was discredit the whole green movement, by pushing something that simply cannot be proven, while there are plenty of other environmental issues besides possible emissions based climate change, that can be proven to be caused by human activity.