Thanks, Joe. Birkbeck College in London has a Department of Economics,
Mathematics and Statistics.

I suppose I was thinking more along the lines of when and if an economics
department is subsumed into a maths faculty, i.e. without the word
'economics' even making an appearance in the faculty title. But I think I
was getting ahead of myself.

As ever

Bob


On Wed, July 30, 2014 14:54, Joe Horton wrote:
> Yes, it has happened.  Until recently Chicago State University had a
> Department of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Economics.  I believe
> Economics has now been moved out of that department.
>
>
> Joe Horton
>
>
>>>> Robert Cord <[log in to unmask]> 7/29/2014 5:22 PM >>>
>>>>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>