H. S. Teoh wrote:

>Alas??? I find math to be very enlightening in learning different ways to
>think about things. I especially appreciate the courses I took on number
>theory and set theory.

Try set theory in relation to linguistics.  Or constructing lattices based
on everyday sentences.  Ie, mathematical proof that "The dog is running
fast" implies that a) there is a dog, b) there is a running, c) the dog is
running, etc.    That class hurt my poor head.

Just a sample form my text:

"In general, (both)...and... and (either)...or... combine expressions of
d,d' in a lattice category C, and [(both) d and d'] denotes the greatest
lower bound of the denotations of d and d' in that lattice, [(either) d or
d'] denotes their least upper bound.  So while "and" may combine sentences
and also verb phrases and also noun phrases, in each case the denotation of
the conjunction is the greatest lower bound of the denotations of the
conjuncts, and the denotations of a disjunction is the least upper bound of
the denotations of the disjuncts.  So "and" is a greatest lower bound
operator and "or" is a least upper bound operator"

This is why mathematicians can do well in linguistics.

Marcus Smith
AIM:  Anaakoot
"When you lose a language, it's like
dropping a bomb on a museum."
   -- Kenneth Hale