Talk:Techno-mathematics

The following is a list of websites that use the term techno-mathematics in ways that are consistent with the definition given.

http://www.tmrfindia.org/

http://www.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de/page/st-te/en

http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/tm_en/

http://www.masterguide.org/FI/LUT/TT/

http://wwwagtm.mathematik.uni-kl.de/agtm/home.html

Also, the text has been modified to make sure that copyrighted material is not used in the definition.

A complete re-write of the applied mathematics version has been uploaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.115.176 (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for revising this material. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

An extension of disciplines of history of mathematics and ethnomathematics?
Is the definition in the first paragraph supported by any of the references? It's not clear what the references are doing in the article anyway. The articles by Gellert and Klein do not even mention the word "techno-mathematics". And all the websites listed, both in the article and (I believe) also on this talk page, use "techno-mathematics" as defined in the second paragraph of the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not my field, but I've removed it for now, pending the production of sources that support. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Applied Mathematics
Isn't this just Applied Mathematics? Infact it seems like a "cool" rip off by Universities of the German term "Technomathematik", which is literally Applied Mathematics. Also, the wording makes it sound like an academic branch of mathematics, when it is infact purely a teacing methodology with a focus on applying maths to certain niche areas. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Technomathematik only the part of Applied Mathematics that related to the physical sciences and engineering. And I don't think it's purely a teaching methodology. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly as Techno-mathematics is described here and on the related University webistes, they're both exactly that. Also, could you point me to the new forms of maths that have been invented related to techno-mathematics? Apparently I'm behind on the cutting edge, because I haven't heard about any new fields dedicated to the subject. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, my sarcasm has been see through, but the fact is no one can answer, because there are no new branches or fields of mathematics dedicated to the subject. It is indeed purely a teaching methodology and general concept for a syllabus; the very definition of Applied Mathematics. Even if we accepted the term, despite it's origins in being identical to Applied Mathematics, as notable, I don't think an article is necessary, perhaps a single line of the Applied Mathematics article mentioning that this is a specific focus of the application of mathematics. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that an article is not necessary, at least with the information we have now. Also taking the comments at the AfD discussion into account, a merge seems very reasonable, so I went ahead. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)