Math2

To what extent is knowledge gained in mathematics different/similar than that gained in history?

Mathematics and history are very different subjects for many reasons. History is based on interpretation of facts, figures and events, and mathematics is a universal invariable system. Therefore, the knowledge that is gained in history is different from that gained in math.

For example, there are always different answers in history, and many ways to see one event and understand it. Opinion is allowed and important in the knowledge of history. I can, for example, think of Mussolini as an incompetent opportunist while somebody else might say he was a visionary leader by using different data interpretation. This is means that facts in history can be manipulated to suit an idea in particular, and that my knowledge of history might different greatly from anyone else’s’. In math, on the contrary, I can’t convince anybody that 6=1 in a natural number system, no matter how many facts I base myself on because 6=6 and that is a universal knowledge. Mathematical evidence can’t be manipulated, and it is universal, because the answer is always correct or incorrect.

All in all, mathematics and history are very different because history is based on subjective knowledge and interpretation, so the knowledge gained will depend greatly on where we learn it, whereas mathematics it is a universal system that must be the same for every mathematician in the world.