Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #385972 > unrolled thread

Is euclidean geometry falsified?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-16 01:07 -0700
    Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-16 04:20 -0700
      Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-16 04:36 -0700
      Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 12:16 -0500
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-20 22:38 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 23:23 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:36 -0500
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-21 07:02 -0700
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-21 07:06 -0700
              Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-22 11:52 +1000
                Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-27 09:50 -0700
    Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-16 06:37 -0700
    Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-17 10:12 -0500
      Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-17 17:34 +0200
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-18 03:11 -0700
      Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-17 17:55 +0200
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-18 13:00 +1000
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:54 +0200
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-20 10:56 +1000
              Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-19 23:09 -0700
                Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-20 19:19 +1000
                  Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 02:43 -0700
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-18 03:14 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-06-18 10:41 -0600
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:58 +0200
      Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 14:27 -0700
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-17 23:46 +0200
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 15:33 -0700
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:30 +0200
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 15:45 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-06-17 17:08 -0600
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:38 +0200
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-17 16:12 -0700
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-06-17 18:39 -0600
              Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-18 21:40 +0200
                Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:17 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-21 09:45 -0700
        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-19 12:06 -0500
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-19 20:50 +0200
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-20 12:16 +1000
              Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-06-19 22:15 -0600
                Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-20 14:29 +1000
                  Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-19 23:27 -0700
                  Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 11:08 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-20 01:53 -0700
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 02:17 -0700
          Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 08:39 -0700
            Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 11:31 -0700
              Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-20 20:51 +0200
                Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 12:13 -0700
                  Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-20 21:44 +0200
                    Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 15:46 -0700
                      Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-20 23:10 -0700
                        Re: Is euclidean geometry falsified? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 09:04 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#386267

> On 6/17/16 6/17/16   4:27 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>> Mathematics is not less SCIENCE than Physics or any other.
 
In sciences, including physics, theories must conform to the 
experimental evidence.
In mathematics, theorems need only conform to one's axioms, never to any 
experimental evidence.
 

So Mathematics is less SCIENCE than Physics or any other science is.
-- 
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386268

On 20/06/2016 2:15 PM, Virgil wrote:
>> On 6/17/16 6/17/16   4:27 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>>> Mathematics is not less SCIENCE than Physics or any other.
>
> In sciences, including physics, theories must conform to the
> experimental evidence.
> In mathematics, theorems need only conform to one's axioms, never to any
> experimental evidence.
>
>
> So Mathematics is less SCIENCE than Physics or any other science is.
>

Mathematics is not a science at all. It never was. It's a different 
discipline entirely. But it's a very powerful tool for those doing science.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386271

W dniu poniedziałek, 20 czerwca 2016 06:29:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 20/06/2016 2:15 PM, Virgil wrote:
> >> On 6/17/16 6/17/16   4:27 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> >>> Mathematics is not less SCIENCE than Physics or any other.
> >
> > In sciences, including physics, theories must conform to the
> > experimental evidence.
> > In mathematics, theorems need only conform to one's axioms, never to any
> > experimental evidence.
> >
> >
> > So Mathematics is less SCIENCE than Physics or any other science is.
> >
> 
> Mathematics is not a science at all. It never was. It's a different 
> discipline entirely. But it's a very powerful tool for those doing science.

Mathematics is not any monolyth.
It's a set of theories, put together only by 
formal requirements.
Mathematics doesn't guarantee their sense. It
doesn't even guarantee their consistency.
They can contradict each other. Why not?

Two of these theories are quite powerful,
and their reliability outclasses any other
mind tools we have. But these are just 2 
of the set. And one of them was rejected by 
Your physics. Do You imagine You can put 
together a set of random axioms and it will 
always have an awesome power? Because it will be 
mathematical?
Wrong. It will be just a formally correct trash.

No, I'm not conflating "theory" and "theorem".
You're dreaming, madame.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386301

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 20/06/2016 2:15 PM, Virgil wrote:
> >> On 6/17/16 6/17/16   4:27 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> >>> Mathematics is not less SCIENCE than Physics or any other.
> >
> > In sciences, including physics, theories must conform to the
> > experimental evidence.
> > In mathematics, theorems need only conform to one's axioms, never to any
> > experimental evidence.
> >
> >
> > So Mathematics is less SCIENCE than Physics or any other science is.
> >
> 
> Mathematics is not a science at all. It never was. It's a different
> discipline entirely. But it's a very powerful tool for those doing science.
> 
> Sylvia.


Mathematics is not a tool, ...it is simply another language...cause they
haven't figured out how to traslate science into inglish.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386275

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 3:06:33 AM UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 6/17/16 6/17/16   4:27 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > Mathematics is not less SCIENCE than Physics or any other.
> 
> Not true. Science is about modeling the world we inhabit. Mathematics is about 
> the interrelationships among abstract concepts completely divorced from the world.

All true. 


> The amazing thing is that mathematics, dealing with abstract concepts, is 
> actively used in the models scientists make of the world.
> 
> 	E. Wigner, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in
> 	the Natural Sciences"
> 
> 
> Tom Roberts


To be fair, the mathematics are not necessarily "unreasonably" effective" as Wigner put it. Mathematics are actually pretty bad when it comes to predicting outcomes in chaotic systems. The stockmarket is a good example, or aspects of climate. As a rule known even to scientists, unless we can measure everything, including any disturbances which may impact on a system, our predictions can mean very little. 

As a rough guide, this documentary is worth watching. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfp5tKeSQAc


-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386276

W dniu poniedziałek, 20 czerwca 2016 10:53:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Y napisał:
> On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 3:06:33 AM UTC+10, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 6/17/16 6/17/16   4:27 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > > Mathematics is not less SCIENCE than Physics or any other.
> > 
> > Not true. Science is about modeling the world we inhabit. Mathematics is about 
> > the interrelationships among abstract concepts completely divorced from the world.
> 
> All true. 

Because that's what THE GURUS said!!!
Bull shit.
Mathematics has NO requirements about its content.
It has only requirements about the form.
Usually mathematics keeps the distance from the
reality. Usually. EG is not quite usual and doesn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386294

El domingo, 19 de junio de 2016, 13:06:33 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> On 6/17/16 6/17/16   4:27 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > Mathematics is not less SCIENCE than Physics or any other.
> 
> Not true. Science is about modeling the world we inhabit. Mathematics is about 
> the interrelationships among abstract concepts completely divorced from the world.
>
Does not exist (and never will be) a single instance of the things you denote
as "abstract concepts completely divorced from the world". Your mind (or the 
one of any other) is also part of this world, and as such, not having chance at 
all to be completely divorced from it.

No matter how abstract it can seem to be, Mathematics IS ALSO a Science about
modeling the world we inhabit. Talking about Euclidean geometry, from where do 
you think arises even its proper denotation “geometry”? From the measurement of 
the Earth, an evident part of the world, being part of it also the men who make 
all measurements, including their minds.

The essence of any Science, including Mathematics, is the experimental support
only possible to obtain interacting with the world we inhabit as part of it. 
The deductions that some men can do from axioms conceived by others, is also an 
experimental activity with the capacity to falsify any theory if reaching a 
contradiction.
 
> The amazing thing is that mathematics, dealing with abstract concepts, is 
> actively used in the models scientists make of the world.
> 
> 	E. Wigner, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in
> 	the Natural Sciences"
>
Unreasonable only for the ones thinking that Mathematics is not a Science, but
the exclusive fruit of the internal mind activity of some men.  Even then, I
respect a lot the right of any person to think in such a way, including you.  
> 
> Tom Roberts

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386304

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 8:39:19 AM UTC-7, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> >
> Unreasonable only for the ones thinking that Mathematics is not a Science,

It's not a question of "thinking", it's just English usage. I most European
languages (AFAIK) mathematics _is_ science. But not in English.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386308

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:4c89cf44-6065-4dba-a8f8-f6deab57ede9@googlegroups.com...

> Unreasonable only for the ones thinking that Mathematics is not a Science,

|It's not a question of "thinking", it's just English usage.

Usage of language is, exactly, "thinking", poor idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386313

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:51:25 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:4c89cf44-6065-4dba-a8f8-f6deab57ede9@googlegroups.com...
> 
> > Unreasonable only for the ones thinking that Mathematics is not a Science,
> 
> |It's not a question of "thinking", it's just English usage.
> 
> Usage of language is, exactly, "thinking", poor idiot.

You misunderstood. Also, your incessant use of the phrase "poor idiot"
(and other magic words) signifies OCD. I'd see a doctor if I were you.
These symptoms are usually of benign origin but not always. Worth a check.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386319

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:c96c1466-9a21-44ba-a51a-53ff5a494981@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:51:25 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:4c89cf44-6065-4dba-a8f8-f6deab57ede9@googlegroups.com...
>
> > Unreasonable only for the ones thinking that Mathematics is not a 
> > Science,
>
> |It's not a question of "thinking", it's just English usage.
>
> Usage of language is, exactly, "thinking", poor idiot.

|You misunderstood.

No.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386332

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 12:44:21 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:c96c1466-9a21-44ba-a51a-53ff5a494981@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:51:25 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:4c89cf44-6065-4dba-a8f8-f6deab57ede9@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Unreasonable only for the ones thinking that Mathematics is not a 
> > > Science,
> >
> > |It's not a question of "thinking", it's just English usage.
> >
> > Usage of language is, exactly, "thinking", poor idiot.
> 
> |You misunderstood.
> 
> No.

Of course you did. The point of the post was to simply state that
in English the word "science" denotes slightly different thing than
in other European languages. If you have a problem with that,
file a complaint to the OED.

I notice you like to argue to death absolutely _pointless points_
[pun intended] which are indefensible. BTW, you omitted the portion:

> Also, your incessant use of the phrase "poor idiot"
> (and other magic words) signifies OCD. I'd see a doctor if I were you.
> These symptoms are usually of benign origin but not always. Worth a check. 

You are not going to comment on that?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386360

W dniu wtorek, 21 czerwca 2016 00:46:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 12:44:21 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> > dyskusyjnych:c96c1466-9a21-44ba-a51a-53ff5a494981@googlegroups.com...
> > 
> > On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:51:25 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:4c89cf44-6065-4dba-a8f8-f6deab57ede9@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > Unreasonable only for the ones thinking that Mathematics is not a 
> > > > Science,
> > >
> > > |It's not a question of "thinking", it's just English usage.
> > >
> > > Usage of language is, exactly, "thinking", poor idiot.
> > 
> > |You misunderstood.
> > 
> > No.
> 
> Of course you did. The point of the post was to simply state that
> in English the word "science" denotes slightly different thing than
> in other European languages.

So why did it state something different?
> 
> > Also, your incessant use of the phrase "poor idiot"
> > (and other magic words) signifies OCD. I'd see a doctor if I were you.
> > These symptoms are usually of benign origin but not always. Worth a check. 
> 
> You are not going to comment on that?

If you wish  - advices of such an idiot don't interest me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386402

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:10:56 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu wtorek, 21 czerwca 2016 00:46:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 12:44:21 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> > > dyskusyjnych:c96c1466-9a21-44ba-a51a-53ff5a494981@googlegroups.com...
> > > 
> > > On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:51:25 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > dyskusyjnych:4c89cf44-6065-4dba-a8f8-f6deab57ede9@googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Unreasonable only for the ones thinking that Mathematics is not a 
> > > > > Science,
> > > >
> > > > |It's not a question of "thinking", it's just English usage.
> > > >
> > > > Usage of language is, exactly, "thinking", poor idiot.
> > > 
> > > |You misunderstood.
> > > 
> > > No.
> > 
> > Of course you did. The point of the post was to simply state that
> > in English the word "science" denotes slightly different thing than
> > in other European languages.
> 
> So why did it state something different?

You are talking to yourself from now on.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web