From: jeffrey E. <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10:28 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: Re: "easy" , is for others = - glad she hasn't left .1 think of you =wo as pluto and its moon On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Noam Chomsky > wrote: Mathematicians are lucky. Even =ore so than logicians, who worry about foundations.</=> As for the sciences, the luckiest is =hysics. If a molecule is too big, or some other system too complex, =hey handed over to the chemists — who do the same with the biologists — who proceed to the psychological sciences =E2 and then on to history and literature. And of course depth =f explanation is necessarily sacrificed along the way as complexity mounts= There are a few exceptions. Parts of linguistics, for example. =t would be good to widen that bridgehead, but not easy. Valeria hasn't been able to leave yet. Maybe in a couple of d=ys. From: jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected]) Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 2:18 PM To: Noam Chomsky Subject: Re: I understand, mathematics are the =nique formalism for proofs. . I watch the lack of direct=on and leadership. , as in cognitive theory, with lots of data =and no much beter understanding, I m trying to have you give a new g=neration directions . prize, test. proof. demonstration. et=. as the evidence of real advance. how is it witho=t your valeria. must be much different On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Noam Chomsky wrote: Some efforts, but nothing satisfying.=C2 One problem is a fundamental difference between math and science. =AO When a math problem is posed and solved, it's solved. There=E2 s a proof. There are no proofs in the empirical world. =Just better theories, that could be (and usually are) at least partially w=ong. EFTA_R1_01620129 EFTA02495947