Q24

[asafezrati]

This one is not amazingly complex nor special, but I would like to see an explanation.

Here is mine:

FG's view of FG is presented mainly in P1 and P2. P3 contains other people's views.

A. Incorrect. The enthusiasts mentioned in P3 mention that FG might be a challenger to calculus. It is not the author's view.

B. Incorrect. The author doesn't speak about improvements in computers, nor foresee an increase in FG's role in traditional mathematics. This might belong to the enthusiasts in P3.

C. Incorrect. In the author's views FG wasn't mentioned as the fastest growing field of mathematics. It's growth rate wasn't compared to anything.

D. Incorrect. FG has been enhanced by the use of computers, but mathematical theorems are brought up mainly by the skeptic mathematicians at the end of P3. They themselves don't speak of a connection between the theorems and computers, and in addition they say that there are only a few theorems proven by this field. The future of this issue is clouded.

E. Correct. In lines 35-36 the author mentions a "major attraction of FG: simple processes can be responsible for incredibly complex patterns."