zzbunker at netscape.net (ZZBunker) wrote in message news:<e4a0829b.0409041043.6a9e2cf at posting.google.com>...
> r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message news:<prdjj05ns83p7vkntojv256ost5gvklv7r at 4ax.com>...
> > On 3 Sep 2004 23:11:01 -0700, zzbunker at netscape.net (ZZBunker) wrote:
> > >r norman <rsn_ at _comcast.net> wrote in message news:<jrohj09c5s7pl63r904cqlmdgn2hkh1v7e at 4ax.com>...
>> > >
> > > And of course "biologists" still don't believe that
> > > physics includes a little bit of math (among other notions).
> > Worse. Biologists know all too well that physics requires math, that
> > is why they avoid it like the plague. The problem is that too many
> > biologists still don't believe that biology includes a little bit of
> > math.
>> Biology obviously requires zero math, since Biology
Actually, if you look back at the book "General Systems Theory"
written sometime in the 1950s or 60s, you'll see it was written by
Ludwig von Bertalanfy, who was a "biologist", and who takes credit for
developing many systems theory ideas as far back as the 1930s - prior
to the invention of cybernetics. His book is heavy into math, and sets
up the form of state variable equations that are in wide use in
engineering and maths/etc, today. Classical stuff.