3 ms·

As theories go I like it, but I don't think the headline and conclusion are supported by the article. The meat seems to be that math was important, but material

by roenxi 3y ago

As theories go I like it, but I don't think the headline and conclusion are supported by the article. The meat seems to be that math was important, but materials science and manufacturing technique to achieve greater precision was most critical. > The pioneers of the Industrial Revolution valorized precision... This phrase to me is the key of the whole thing. They weren't excited about what we would recognise today as maths. They wanted accurate manufacturing and measurement. That does naturally dovetail into improved mathematical technique, but I think it is incorrect to say that math is the driver here. Precision is the driver. That has remained true to today by the way (most precise manufacturing? semiconductors).

Animats 3y ago
> As theories go I like it, but I don't think the headline and conclusion are supported by the article. Right. What the author doesn't really pick up on is how engineering developed. Before 1800 or so, science and math were not routinely used by people who built stuff. Edison tended to deride mathematical theorists, although he hired some. Early navigation and astronomy required math, but that was mostly measurement, not design. The first thing that really required math in the engineering was the steam engine. It's possible to build a steam engine with no understanding of thermodynamics, but it will be a really crappy steam engine. Watt's early engines were about 2% efficient. Carnot, in 1824, published "Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire", which, for the first time, addressed engine design in terms of heat, pressure, efficiency, heat transfer, etc. Around the middle of the 19th century, Joule and Kelvin finally got a decent mathematical theory for heat engines. Engine designs improved substantially and efficiencies went up. At last, direct use of math in engineering was really paying off. Early electrical work was trial and error. Sort of. Edison publicly derided theorists, but he had some on his payroll. When AC came along, more theory was needed. Now calculus was required. Westinghouse and Tesla got involved, and generators, motors, and transformers started working much better. (I've pointed out before that Tesla's real contribution was that he figured out how to get AC electric motors started.) Good motors require electromagnetic fields in strange shapes, and intuition fails for that. You need math.
- jjjjj55555 3y ago
  How did they build churches and stuff without using math?
  - aeortiz 3y ago
    Scale models, Vitruvius, oral history, geometry (an applied math)
    - roenxi 3y ago
      Also massively overengineering things and wasting a lot of time. It is completely possible to build stuff without any math whatsoever if the community of builders copies what they did last time, makes minor adjustments when it doesn't work and keeps an oral history. Of course, the constructions will be overengineered, not really of industrial volume and the community will believe a lot of things that are not true. And any attempts to be innovative will usually be expensive disasters. Don't forget all the unstable buildings fell down a long time ago and we don't remember them.
      - Animats 3y ago
        At least three pyramids in Egypt had major structural failures. There was a lack of understanding of how the weight on top can produce an outward push below.

by roenxi 3y ago

Animats 3y ago

> As theories go I like it, but I don't think the headline and conclusion are supported by the article. Right. What the author doesn't really pick up on is how engineering developed. Before 1800 or so, science and math were not routinely used by people who built stuff. Edison tended to deride mathematical theorists, although he hired some. Early navigation and astronomy required math, but that was mostly measurement, not design. The first thing that really required math in the engineering was the steam engine. It's possible to build a steam engine with no understanding of thermodynamics, but it will be a really crappy steam engine. Watt's early engines were about 2% efficient. Carnot, in 1824, published "Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire", which, for the first time, addressed engine design in terms of heat, pressure, efficiency, heat transfer, etc. Around the middle of the 19th century, Joule and Kelvin finally got a decent mathematical theory for heat engines. Engine designs improved substantially and efficiencies went up. At last, direct use of math in engineering was really paying off. Early electrical work was trial and error. Sort of. Edison publicly derided theorists, but he had some on his payroll. When AC came along, more theory was needed. Now calculus was required. Westinghouse and Tesla got involved, and generators, motors, and transformers started working much better. (I've pointed out before that Tesla's real contribution was that he figured out how to get AC electric motors started.) Good motors require electromagnetic fields in strange shapes, and intuition fails for that. You need math.

jjjjj55555 3y ago
How did they build churches and stuff without using math?
- aeortiz 3y ago
  Scale models, Vitruvius, oral history, geometry (an applied math)
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Also massively overengineering things and wasting a lot of time. It is completely possible to build stuff without any math whatsoever if the community of builders copies what they did last time, makes minor adjustments when it doesn't work and keeps an oral history. Of course, the constructions will be overengineered, not really of industrial volume and the community will believe a lot of things that are not true. And any attempts to be innovative will usually be expensive disasters. Don't forget all the unstable buildings fell down a long time ago and we don't remember them.
    - Animats 3y ago
      At least three pyramids in Egypt had major structural failures. There was a lack of understanding of how the weight on top can produce an outward push below.