Group 7 BALAO, Miguel | 2017-01326

STS 1 WFR DEL ROSARIO, Vayne Altapscine B. | 2019-07602

Assignment 5 LIMBO, Matthew Jazztine P. | 2017-89164

STS 1 Relationship between Mathematics and Language

Online discussion on the Relationship between Mathematics and Language with Dr. Lumberto
Mendoza. Before our synchronous class session on this day, please watch his lecture and
discussion during the March 23 session in the STS1 THQ class of Dr. Rodolfo Treyes. See
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K6rgJwu9zvnYDresIU5QndiNWH_2hxfk/view?usp=sharing.
(Lecture proper is until ~53 minutes; discussion with insights from Dr. Treyes after.)
Then in preparation for the discussion (very quick Assignment 5, actually), please share your
questions, comments, and/or reactions as a group (could be individual but compiled as group
upon submission) in UVLE on or before April 15/Thursday at 7:00 pm here in this forum for
those enrolled in WFR class. Please indicate your group number. You can also opt to share your
questions, etc. live during the class.

During the online discussion, Vayne asked “does whether math is real or
socially-constructed impact the axioms? Like, the Zermelo-Frankel axioms upon which math is
founded- does this imply that they’re socially-constructed also and that there’s a different way to
“build” math?” To this, Dr. Mendoza discussed how the mediation between different axioms is a
lot like having different languages and such axiomatic differences generate misunderstandings
due to how fundamental these changes are. He also mentioned that this question is a rather
fundamental one and is one of the topics he and his colleagues have recently been tackling,
especially in terms of creating “transitional languages,” which would be key to bridging these
differences. This answer was deeply insightful and says something about how the dichotomy
between universalist and relativist views can fall apart under greater scrutiny of the performances
in discourse.
In my (Matty’s) case, I wasn’t able to submit any questions but I did see the video
recording of the Relationship between Language and Mathematics Lecture by Dr. Mendoza. The
Lecture topic actually made me remember about this movie in the Lego franchise. It was a quick

1 of 2
interaction about Math and Language. Queen Watevra Wa’Nabi and the Team of Protagonists are
introduced to each other, before the opening number of the Queen was about to start, she was
asked by Benny why she should be trusted. She said an intro for it saying “I’ll tell you using the
universal language.” to be followed by Unikitty asking “Is it math?” “The language that unites
all our planets in our system” The Queen said. Wyldstyle sighs and exclaims “Oh no! Are we in
a musical?” This very brief mention of the relationship between math and language cracked me
up because of their use in comedy. It was actually giving us a clue head on of the relationship
which is really that tight-knit. But entertainment aside, One of the lines that struck me in the
lecture was “The mind sees the world not as it is, but in terms of patterns.” This was an
enlightening statement for me. Math is literally the universal language. You think everything is
random and it’s the beauty of nature but it’s not. Math has a master plan, a blueprint of
explanations. It’s another special point of view to look at the world. And us as curious beings
relate to how our minds tinker on the things we put our heads on.
It’s amazing to think how mathematics and languages have these links that can be well
defined under specific lenses and could bring out topics that would seemingly be simplistic in
nature but turns out to be complicated to the point of almost paradoxical. Take for example how
both concepts make use of logic and structure in order to provide its identity. In their most visible
similarity being the same use of elements such as letters and numbers, they also form the
building blocks in which could produce equations in one end while words in the other. From
there, it can complicate itself further. Points turn into lines, which turn into planes, that
eventually turn into multidimensional imagery and matrices. Letters turn into words, which turn
into sentences, then paragraphs, then eventually pieces of literature. Of course, the progression
goes on and on making more complicated concepts and ideas that the mind would eventually
find difficult to comprehend. It also brings about the question of “at what point do we stop?”.
Where can we put the marker to the limitations of the mind and human ingenuity? Such
questions with philosophical in nature came into mind while listening in on the talk given on this
topic. Hence, I believe it was an excellent idea to have invited a philosopher into the talk. It was
one of the most abstract, free thinking, mind boggling, and most logic seeking talk I’ve
encountered in this series of talks during our STS course.

2 of 2