I find it extremely funny that people with a B.A. or B.S. in math consider themselves mathematicians. Mathematicians are people who are well-established in their field. Most of them have at least an M.A. or M.S. in math if not a Doctorate Degree. For example, I have a B.A. in sociology but that does not make me a sociologist. What is your view? Do you agree? If not, why not?

__________________
I thank you for your effort.

Besides the degree, I would think a mathematician is one who makes his or her living doing mathematics in some form or another. Whether it be in the private sector, doing research, or what not. Do you make your living as a sociologist in some respect?. Then, I would think that makes you a sociologist.


That's my opinion.

I am not a sociologist. I have a B.A. in the field but my job (not a career) has nothing to do with sociology. I think a mathematician is someone who is not only professional in the field but who also loves math and contributes in some way or another to the world of numbers.

__________________
I thank you for your effort.

It seems like you are pretty set on your own definition...

Paul Erdős defined a mathematician as a machine for turning coffee into theorems. This is similar to another definition - one who has proven a previously unknown or unproven theorem, or produced an essentially new proof for a known theorem (obviously the use of substances other than coffee as a fuel is allowed by this definition).

(By the requirements for a doctorate from the institutions where I studied this would make all PhD's in maths mathematicians (but we know that that is really not true), but there are many others who qualify without a PhD. Many of those who publish in the Mathematical Gazette and similar journals meet this requirement without having a PhD, many of the results published there are small rather than great theorems, but they are theorems none the less)

Beware of any definition of a mathematician that excludes people like Fermat.

CB

Credentials are useful tools in assessing a person, but they do not always define what a person is. People are what they do.

Obviously some words are defined by credentials. For example, it would be flat-out dishonest for someone to claim they are a medical doctor if they do not have credentials as the word "doctor" in our language and culture carries with it the implication of being licensed to practice medicine. Yet I think we'd all agree it would be ludicrous to try to insist someone has to have an advanced degree in art or music or English in order to accurately refer to themselves as an artist or a musician or a a writer. Even people who don't do these jobs professionally will often use those words to describe what they do as a hobby, so long as they do it reasonably well.

"Mathematician" is not clearly defined in our language. It just doesn't come up that much. Captain Black's definition is probably fair, although, there are other kinds of mathematical professions where I think if inquired about, "mathematician" might be an appropriate word in trying to explain what it is that those people are in simpler terms. For example many people don't know what an actuary is, and I think a reasonable response to "what's that?" would be to say something like "a mathematician who evaluates statistics for public or commercial purposes."

That should be "someone who uses mathematics to evaluates statistics for public or commercial purposes" (that is if I thought that accurately described what an acturary usually does, it covers a lot of other activities other than those of an actuary)

In fact is it not the case that to be an acturary is to be a member of a professional society for actuaries.

CB

__________________
Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

Giordano Bruno

There is a difference between speaking with people within a field, and speaking with the general public. Language is generally defined by how words are used generally in a society (even slang words become "real" words given enough use over time.) The word "mathematician" can have a broader definition to the general public.

An example: The artistic elite are actively disgusted by the general use of the word "artist". They have a very limited definition of the word "artist" which only encompasses people who create art for art's sake. The art must have absolutely no function - not even the function of being an attractive image. People who make attractive images are "illustrators". People who create beautiful items with ANY kind of practical function are "crafters" or "artisans". People whose work appears in print or in media are "designers". In their world, only They, the Anointed Ones, can accurately be called "artists", even if their "art" is no more than smearing **** on a wall as a statement about cultural waste. To them, this definition is very, very real.

So if someone in the general public says to them, "Norman Rockwell is my favorite American artist", they will aloofly correct them. "Norman Rockwell is not an artist. He is an illustrator."

Regardless of whether they are right or not (and I don't think they are), I'm not certain of the point of insisting on the distinction. Except among a tiny group of colleagues and possibly other academic minds that are impressed by their artistic fame, insiting on this kind of distinction just makes them sound like pompous jerks.

Now I grant you that the word "mathemetician" to the general public has a meaning closer to your academic meaning than the word "artist" does in my example, but I do think a slightly broader public use of the word is still accurate enough for most practical purposes.

Using it in the manner you want is full of risks, it is like the word engineer in the UK, to the general public this denotes a mechanic or a fitter. The consequence is that engineering is an undervalued profession in the UK.

(Even the countries largest engineering employer thinks an engineer and fitter are one and the same - I have been on their schools road show which is supposed to interest kids in jobs in the engineering industry, but the only jobs presented were as fitters, it was almost as if this company did not employ professional design and development engineers (or chartered engineers).)

CB

__________________
Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

Giordano Bruno

I challenge your tagline:

While this statement can apply to many things, in the case of language (or currency value, or rules of etiquette, or what day a holiday is celebrated, or any number of things), the truth ABSOLUTELY changes because of what people believe.

Words have meaning because people decide they had that meaning. Presently, the definition of "mathematician" as defined in a dictionary or by common use, is not as specific as you propose. People and dictionaries define the word to mean a person who specializes in mathematics, or in even more casual vernacular, a person who is skilled in mathematics.

You can wish this to not be the case, but that doesn't change reality. If mathematicians (that is, the kind you consider to be "real" mathematicians) care, a more realistic and constructive solution might be to self-assign a more specific designation, in the same way that theoretical physicists do (in order to differentiate themselves from, for example, applied physicists, who often do not have PhDs or do work that advances the science of physics, but are nonetheless valuable physics specialists who do very important work and should rightfully, IMO, call themselves physicists.)

This is the correct answer.

__________________
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary components.

What Makes Someone a Mathematician?

Someone who posts at http://www.mathhelpforum.com/

I'm funny yeh?

__________________
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary components.

Words have meanings defined by usage not dictionaries. It is not true that a word has a single meaning at any one time, what might be true is a statement something like "In South East England in mid July 2009 a common understanding of the meaning of the word dog is a domesticated member of the genus Canis".

By a "common understanding" is meant that I asked two friends, one agreed and the other quibbled over whether this included feral domestic canines and/or domestic hybrids of domestic and non-domestic canines. What we all agreed upon was that domestic in this context did not imply that they regularly did any vac-ing or tidying and that our Ben was a dog, while our Tsunami was probably a cat of some kind.

(To summarise; a word has no "true" meaning, it is a convention which changes with time and space)

CB

__________________
Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

Giordano Bruno