Indeed.

I wonder how long it will be before economics 'departments' are housed in
the mathematics faculty. Perhaps it has already happened somewhere.

As ever

Bob



On Tue, July 29, 2014 21:07, Lawrence Boland wrote:
> Bob, I would go further:
>
>
> Some argue that the culture of mathematics departments has
> overtaken graduate economics to the extent that realism is of lesser
> concern than elegance. I saw this culture first hand and when I took
> graduate mathematics classes as part of my graduate education.
>
> LB
>
>
> On 29-Jul-14 12:48 PM, Robert Cord wrote:
>
>> Dear Martin
>>
>>
>> Your daughter's professor was and is surely correct. Indeed, it is
>> probably not an exaggeration to argue that a mathematics undergraduate
>> has an easier time of it at economics graduate level than their
>> economics counterpart. This is why we need more history of thought - and
>> I don't
>> mean history of mathematics!
>>
>> As ever
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, July 29, 2014 20:13, Martin Tangora wrote:
>>
>>> Disclosure:  I am a (retired) mathematician, and in particular a
>>> (retired) teacher of calculus.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In my line of work we have all heard of Berkeley's "ghosts of
>>> departed quantities," but most of us would probably not know that this
>>> witty criticism was published in 1734.  There is a very satisfactory
>>> article in Wikipedia on the Berkeley book, The Analyst, that gives
>>> plenty of context for the jibe:
>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analyst
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think that "ghostly fingers" has any connection to this.  As
>>> I
>>> think some of you already have done, I checked the Google Ngram Viewer
>>> for "ghostly fingers" and it does not appear until the 1830s.  There
>>> is nothing about "fingers" in the Berkeley discussion.
>>>
>>> An economics professor told my daughter, whose B.A. was in economics,
>>>  that grad school in economics was essentially mathematics.  Whether
>>> or not that is true, I would have thought that all of you would know
>>> the correct definition of the slope of a curve, which involves forming
>>> a quotient, and then finding the limit as both members of that
>>> fraction tend to zero.  One must strictly avoid actually setting the
>>> members to zero, but the limit makes sense anyway.  And Berkeley is
>>> witty about it, and can be said to be correct (see the Wiki referenced
>>> above), but Berkeley is long gone, and the calculus is still very much
>>> with us.
>>>
>>> On 7/28/2014 10:30 AM, Alain Alcouffe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the tips
>>>> I believed that it was a reference to Berkeley and his "ghosts of
>>>> departed quantities" but by this sentence, Berkeley targeted the
>>>> infinitesimals (or the calculus) not the law of motion. Besides, I
>>>> could not find the expression or an approaching one in Berkeley..
>>>> Then I
>>>> searched in the 4 letters of Isaac Newton to Bentley - in the third
>>>> one, Newton came very close to the idea.. describing a “divine
>>>> arm” placing planets ... Anyway I continue to suspect that despite
>>>> google search the expression could be found during the 18th century
>>>> - (possibly
>>>> as a joke about the Holy Ghost) During the 20th century, the
>>>> expression in relation to Newton appears in A. Koestler, The
>>>> Sleepwalkers. A History of Man’s Changing Vision of
>>>> the Universe, London, Penguin Books, 1959, p. 511. (and also
>>>> ghost-fingers)
>>>>
>>>> On 28/07/2014 14:35, Scot Stradley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have the quotes at fingertip, but the phrase probably
>>>>> refers to Berkeley's critique of the metaphysics of calculus.
>>>>> Newton's method
>>>>> of determining the limit involved the use of triangles whose side
>>>>> adjacent to the curve was gradually reduced so that the known
>>>>> properties of geometry could explain the slope of the curve.
>>>>> Newton
>>>>> lays this out in Book I of the Principia.  Obviously the size of
>>>>> the side facing the curve and the area of the triangle were
>>>>> gradually reduced-- hence the reference to vanishing quantities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Scot A. Stradley, Ph.D.
>>>>> Professor of Finance
>>>>> Offutt School of Business
>>>>> Concordia College
>>>>> Moorhead, MN 56562
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on
>>>>> behalf of Nicholas Theocarakis [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Sunday,
>>>>> July
>>>>> 27, 2014 6:44 PM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [SHOE] ghostly fingers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Alain
>>>>> I did a check on Google Books setting time parameters. The phrase
>>>>> "ghostly fingers" does not appear before the 19th century.
>>>>> This might help.
>>>>> Nikos
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Alain Alcouffe
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>> r>> wrote:
>>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>> In the Methodology of economics, Mark Blaug wrote :
>>>>> he was unable to meet the objection of many of his contemporaries
>>>>> that the very notion of gravity acting instantaneously at a
>>>>> distance without any material medium to carry the force - ghostly
>>>>> fingers clutching through the void! - is utterly metaphysical.
>>>>> (cf. snd
>>>>> edition, p. 6). Actually Blaug has added several references in
>>>>> footnote 2: Toulmin, S., and J. Goodfield. 1963. The Fabric of
>>>>> the Heavens.
>>>>> London: Penguin Books., pp. 281-2;
>>>>> Toulmin and Goodfield, 11965. The Architecture of Matter. London:
>>>>> Penguin Books, pp. 217-20;
>>>>> Hanson, N. R. 1965. Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge
>>>>> University Press. pp. 90-1;
>>>>> Losee, J. 1972. A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of
>>>>> Science. London: Oxford University
>>>>> Press., pp. 90-3
>>>>> But I could not check any (except Losee). When I read this
>>>>> sentence three decades ago, I took  "ghostly fingers" for an
>>>>> allusion to Berkeley's Analyst (Criticising "fluxions", Berkeley
>>>>> wrote: May we
>>>>> not call them the ghosts of departed quantities?). But working on
>>>>> Smith's History of Astronomy, I am afraid I was wrong and Mark
>>>>> Blaug
>>>>> did not quote Berkeley at all and could have another author or
>>>>> passage in mind. Has anybody a suggestion? (I cannot check Blaug's
>>>>> references myself except Losee) best regards
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin C. Tangora
>>> tangora (at) uic.edu
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Lawrence A. Boland, FRSC
> Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University
> Burnaby BC Canada V5A-1S6
> phone: 778-782-4487, web: http://www.sfu.ca/~boland
>
>