As a postgraduate student of economics I\'ve been trying to expand my mathematical \"toolset\". While doing so I\'ve talked to engineers, physicists and mathematicians, many of which have disdained the use of mathematics in economics. Their arguments vary, but one common theme is summed up by mathematician Michael Edesess\' critique: Economics pretends to be mathematics, but it is not mathematics. There is a major difference. No mathematician uses a term in a formula, or a statement of a theorem, unless that term has first been defined with excruciating precision. And while economists may think they Solution Edesess is attacking what is really just a straw man of economics. I\'m not sure he really understands the field. To start, economics is not math. We\'re not claiming that it is. It\'s more of an \"applied\" science. Economists have never claimed that these definitions are precise in the way that mathematics is. These definitions are modeling constructs---they\'re for applied work. They\'re use is temporary in a way. The point is to try to convey an idea in a more precise way than just in words---but everyone knows that they\'re not a precise as we would like and not as precise as they ultimately should be. They\'re meant to be debated and later refined. But, as all applied scientists know, you\'ve got to start somewhere and sometimes ideas are best conveyed through simpler---if less detailed mean. Coming up with better definitions is a huge part of the economic science. Consider these examples. When the Cowles Foundation was founded in 1932 its motto was \"Theory and Measurement\" (the motto was first adopted in 1952). Measurement is not an easy thing to do. As another example, a lot of Larry Kotlikoff\'s work has dealt with how a lot of fiscal measures are not economically well-defined concepts. Einstein taught us that neither time, nor distance are well-defined physical concepts. Instead, their measurement is relative to our frame of reference.