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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#386277

On 20/06/2016 4:09 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 20 czerwca 2016 02:56:15 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else
>
>>> Madame, get conscious.
>>> Take almost any of its theorems. Pythagorean? Is it possible
>>> to measure 3 distances and one angle,  calculate a*a+b*b and
>>> test, whether it is c*c or is it impossible.
>>
>> If the axioms hold, then so does Pythagoras, since that it is a theorem.
>> If you find by measurement that Pythagoras does not hold, then that just
>> tells you that your geometry is not Euclidean.
>
> And if  you find by measurement that no flogiston exists,
> it just tells you that your world is not flogistonian.
> Nothing else.

No one could really be that deluded. I often suspect that you're a 
troll, who conceives of fundamentally flawed lines of reasoning just to 
see what reaction you can get.

Sylvia.

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

#386279

W dniu poniedziałek, 20 czerwca 2016 11:19:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 20/06/2016 4:09 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu poniedziałek, 20 czerwca 2016 02:56:15 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else
> >
> >>> Madame, get conscious.
> >>> Take almost any of its theorems. Pythagorean? Is it possible
> >>> to measure 3 distances and one angle,  calculate a*a+b*b and
> >>> test, whether it is c*c or is it impossible.
> >>
> >> If the axioms hold, then so does Pythagoras, since that it is a theorem.
> >> If you find by measurement that Pythagoras does not hold, then that just
> >> tells you that your geometry is not Euclidean.
> >
> > And if  you find by measurement that no flogiston exists,
> > it just tells you that your world is not flogistonian.
> > Nothing else.
> 
> No one could really be that deluded.

Well, I suppose You're not pretending, You can really be that 
deluded. 

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

#386123

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 1:56:04 AM UTC+10, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:n7udnWz8heXXjvnKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 
> 
> |Experimentally, measurements in a non-inertial frame, and
> |measurements made over very large distances do NOT agree
> |with Euclidean geometry.
> 
> And how do you call a theory providing predictions that don't agree
> with  measurement?
> 
> BTW. You have a theory X that says "mathematics theories don't
> give falsifiable predictions".
> You see that EG, for sure a mathematical theory, gives such
> predictions.
> So, your theory X is   ...?
> 
> IT IS OBVIOUSLY CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> BECAUSE IT"S WRITTEN IN HOLY BOOKS OF GREAT GURUS!!!!!!!!
> 
> Right?


It's not a requisite of mathematics to model the world in the domain of mathematics. It is a requisite of mathematics to model the world in the domain of science and physics. 

Get a grip on reality. 

-y

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

#386143

In article <9ca8d45e-1545-4f54-b242-332fc6f6345e@googlegroups.com>,
 Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 1:56:04 AM UTC+10, Maciej Wo??niak wrote:
> > U??ytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisa?? w wiadomo??ci grup 
> > dyskusyjnych:n7udnWz8heXXjvnKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > 
> > 
> > |Experimentally, measurements in a non-inertial frame, and
> > |measurements made over very large distances do NOT agree
> > |with Euclidean geometry.
> > 
> > And how do you call a theory providing predictions that don't agree
> > with  measurement?
> > 
> > BTW. You have a theory X that says "mathematics theories don't
> > give falsifiable predictions".
> > You see that EG, for sure a mathematical theory, gives such
> > predictions.
> > So, your theory X is   ...?
> > 
> > IT IS OBVIOUSLY CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > BECAUSE IT"S WRITTEN IN HOLY BOOKS OF GREAT GURUS!!!!!!!!
> > 
> > Right?
> 
> 
> It's not a requisite of mathematics to model the world in the domain of 
> mathematics. It is a requisite of mathematics to model the world in the 
> domain of science and physics. 

Actually, it is NOT required of mathematics to model the world in the 
domain of science and physics, but is just a lucky benefit, that so far 
at least, it has done so well at it.

There seems to be some uncertainty among  physicists as to whether that 
chain of successes will continue.
-- 
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

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

#386158

Użytkownik "Y"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:9ca8d45e-1545-4f54-b242-332fc6f6345e@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 1:56:04 AM UTC+10, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:n7udnWz8heXXjvnKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
>
> |Experimentally, measurements in a non-inertial frame, and
> |measurements made over very large distances do NOT agree
> |with Euclidean geometry.
>
> And how do you call a theory providing predictions that don't agree
> with  measurement?
>
> BTW. You have a theory X that says "mathematics theories don't
> give falsifiable predictions".
> You see that EG, for sure a mathematical theory, gives such
> predictions.
> So, your theory X is   ...?
>
> IT IS OBVIOUSLY CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> BECAUSE IT"S WRITTEN IN HOLY BOOKS OF GREAT GURUS!!!!!!!!
>
> Right?


|It's not a requisite of mathematics to model the world in the domain of 
mathematics.
|It is a requisite of mathematics to model the world in the domain of 
science and physics.

Aaaaa.
Well, you have a theory X that says "mathematics theories don't
give falsifiable predictions".
You see that EG, for sure a mathematical theory, gives such
predictions.
So, your theory X is   ...?
Get a grip on reality. Poor idiot.

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

#386091

El viernes, 17 de junio de 2016, 11:12:17 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> On 6/16/16 6/16/16 - 3:07 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > Simple yes or no, please.
> 
> That's like asking:
> 
> 	Does 2+2 = chartreuse? Simple yes or no, please.
> 
> When you don't know what the words you use actually mean, you cannot formulate a 
> sensible question.
>
Very right, but without forgetting that the meaning of words can depend on the
epoch context in which they are used. In Euclid’s epoch, an axiom (or 
postulate) means a primary assertion not derived from previous true ones, 
considered true by itself in an evident way; today, that type of proper 
evidence is not accepted, being the true of any theorem (derived assertion from 
the axioms) a conditional  one depending on the previous assumed true of the 
axioms.
 
> Euclidean geometry is mathematics, and thus is not subject to falsification (aka 
> refutation), which is a concept from SCIENCE, not math.
>
Mathematics is not less SCIENCE than Physics or any other. Yes, as you say,
falsification (aka refutation) is a concept from Science, being it possible in 
ANY science, including Mathematics.
 
For ANY mathematical theory, deriving from its axioms a contradiction (using an
accepted derivation rule set) implies its refutation. For the Euclidean 
geometry case, no one has derived a contradiction until now, being that the 
cause of my "absolutely no" answer to this thread question. In the Physics 
case, even a single experiment can refute any physical theory, but NO one can 
establish its general true.
 
> To re-formulate your question in the realm of science:
> 
>      In what domain does Euclidean geometry provide an accurate model for
>      the world we inhabit?
>
In all domains where the physical theories (using Euclidean geometry) modeling
the world, have not an experiment refuting it.
 
> It does provide an accurate model, insofar as it goes (which is not very far in 
> physics). Euclidean geometry does not include the notion of time [#], so its 
> domain consists only of spatial measurements made in a locally inertial frame, 
> made simultaneously in that frame. This excludes all dynamical processes, 
> mechanics, electrodynamics, gravitation, etc. -- everything we call "physics".
>
You here, by fiat, declare Euclidian geometry domain reduced to "a locally
inertial frame", excluding drastically all dynamical processes, mechanics, 
electrodynamics, gravitation, etc. -- everything we call "physics".  You erase 
(falsify)  then from Physics 1686 Newton's mechanics  (1686NM) and 1905 
Einstein's Relativity (1905R), both theories using Euclidean geometry in an 
epoch where does not exist yet your "locally inertial frame" concept.

What experimental support can you invoke to do such a thing? What single
experiment can you refer against Euclidean geometry?
 
> 	Experimentally, measurements in a non-inertial frame, and
> 	measurements made over very large distances do NOT agree
> 	with Euclidean geometry. For those, more subtle and complex
> 	geometries are needed, and experimentally they must be
> 	consistent with relativity. We don't (yet) know whether
> 	Euclidean geometry, or indeed any geometry at all, applies
> 	at very small scales approaching the Planck scale.
>
1686NM and 1905R have a huge experimental support with measurements made in
Newtonian center of mass systems, denoted by 1905 Einstein as stationary ones, 
with a relative space determined by the corresponding interacting body set, and 
with a relative time carefully defined by him.

If you prefer to forget all astronomical measurements made in the past, we can
talk about the today GPS ECI system. Which theory do you think that models 
better the ECI? 1905R, or GR? This last surely already taken for granted, by 
fiat, in the cosmological very large distances that you mention.

Yes, at Planck scale almost all remain yet for known. Do you exclude already
1905R in this venture? Know you that singularities seem to be excluded from 
1905R?

> 	[#] One could, by fiat, apply Euclidean geometry to a 4-D
> 	spacetime. This is easily refuted, as it would imply that
> 	time behaves EXACTLY like space, which it clearly does not.
>
Well, 4-D spacetime is not known in 1905R, being not necessary at all to
explain pretty well all what occur in the GPS ECI.

Don't interested you yet in how 1905R handles potential energy measured by mass
(including gravitational one), without any arbitrary additive constant? I 
mention this now because it is used in the 1905R relativistic gravitational
potential correction in all the operative GPS atomic clocks synchronization.
 
> 
> Tom Roberts

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

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

#386093

Użytkownik "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:4e821b3a-2caf-4391-8c4b-e1b5d4e0560c@googlegroups.com...

El viernes, 17 de junio de 2016, 11:12:17 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> On 6/16/16 6/16/16 - 3:07 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > Simple yes or no, please.
>
> That's like asking:
>
> Does 2+2 = chartreuse? Simple yes or no, please.
>
> When you don't know what the words you use actually mean, you cannot 
> formulate a
> sensible question.
>
|Very right

No, not very. If it can't be done, question "is it done" is correct and
the answer is "no". Don't expect a relativistic moron to understand
such complicated things, of course.
At this case, of course, Tom only imagined it can't be done. EG
has direct, measurable predictions of distance and angles, and
later it the post poor idiot admitted it.

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

#386097

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:46:33 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:4e821b3a-2caf-4391-8c4b-e1b5d4e0560c@googlegroups.com...
> 
> El viernes, 17 de junio de 2016, 11:12:17 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> > On 6/16/16 6/16/16 - 3:07 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > > Simple yes or no, please.
> >
> > That's like asking:
> >
> > Does 2+2 = chartreuse? Simple yes or no, please.
> >
> > When you don't know what the words you use actually mean, you cannot 
> > formulate a
> > sensible question.
> >
> |Very right
> 
> No, not very. If it can't be done, question "is it done" is correct and
> the answer is "no". Don't expect a relativistic moron to understand
> such complicated things, of course.
> At this case, of course, Tom only imagined it can't be done. EG
> has direct, measurable predictions of distance and angles, and
> later it the post poor idiot admitted it.

You obviously haven't read Tom's post with any care. As usual.

--
Jan

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

#386151

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:993823e5-147b-4384-b261-2f512c975551@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:46:33 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:4e821b3a-2caf-4391-8c4b-e1b5d4e0560c@googlegroups.com...
>
> El viernes, 17 de junio de 2016, 11:12:17 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> > On 6/16/16 6/16/16 - 3:07 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > > Simple yes or no, please.
> >
> > That's like asking:
> >
> > Does 2+2 = chartreuse? Simple yes or no, please.
> >
> > When you don't know what the words you use actually mean, you cannot
> > formulate a
> > sensible question.
> >
> |Very right
>
> No, not very. If it can't be done, question "is it done" is correct and
> the answer is "no". Don't expect a relativistic moron to understand
> such complicated things, of course.
> At this case, of course, Tom only imagined it can't be done. EG
> has direct, measurable predictions of distance and angles, and
> later it the post poor idiot admitted it.

|You obviously haven't read Tom's post with any care. As usual.

Gobledygook.

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

#386099

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-7, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El viernes, 17 de junio de 2016, 11:12:17 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> > 
> > Euclidean geometry is mathematics, and thus is not subject to falsification (aka 
> > refutation), which is a concept from SCIENCE, not math.
> >
> Mathematics is not less SCIENCE than Physics or any other.

Just a quick explanation: in English the word "science" normally refers
to what is also called "natural science". So in English: physics, chemistry, etc. are "sciences" while mathematics is not "science", it's "mathematics". 
Likewise philosophy is not science, it's "philosophy".

This usage is not hard and fast but it's common.

--
Jan

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

#386102

In article <00ff41a3-fe25-4a00-8bf7-fa0072a3f2fe@googlegroups.com>,
 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-7, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato 
> wrote:
> > El viernes, 17 de junio de 2016, 11:12:17 (UTC-4), tjrob137  escribió:
> > > 
> > > Euclidean geometry is mathematics, and thus is not subject to 
> > > falsification (aka 
> > > refutation), which is a concept from SCIENCE, not math.
> > >
> > Mathematics is not less SCIENCE than Physics or any other.
> 
> Just a quick explanation: in English the word "science" normally refers
> to what is also called "natural science". So in English: physics, chemistry, 
> etc. are "sciences" while mathematics is not "science", it's "mathematics". 
> Likewise philosophy is not science, it's "philosophy".
> 
> This usage is not hard and fast but it's common.
 
It is also common to limit "science" to those areas in which hypotheses 
are tested by physical experiment, which mathematical conjectures, for 
instance, are not.

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

#386153

Użytkownik "A Nony Mouse"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:abc-515FDD.17085817062016@news.giganews.com...


|It is also common to limit "science" to those areas in which hypotheses
|are tested by physical experiment, which mathematical conjectures, for
|instance, are not.

Mostly. You can easily test Thales theorem by physical experiment, and
most of other euclidean theorems too.
The guru that invented the above didn't notice it. Neither you did.

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

#386103

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 4:46:48 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-7, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> >
> > Mathematics is not less SCIENCE than Physics or any other.
> 
> Just a quick explanation: in English the word "science" normally refers
> to what is also called "natural science". So in English: physics,
> chemistry, etc. are "sciences" while mathematics is not "science",
> it's "mathematics".  Likewise philosophy is not science, it's "philosophy".
> 
> This usage is not hard and fast but it's common.
> 
> --
> Jan

Many years ago, in one of the technical journals, one writer cast the
discussion of science and mathematics in a Socratic dialog.  The student
came to Socrates asking whether he should study science or mathematics.
Socrates questioned him about whether he wanted to know his subject for
certain or whether he wanted to study reality.  The discussion evolved
to the point that only mathematics is certain but science will always be
incomplete, therefore uncertainty.

However, given mathematical incompleteness theorems, maybe mathematics
isn't so certain after all?

Gary

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

#386106

In article <104baf08-ae0e-4fa5-a83c-3a11b13e65f9@googlegroups.com>,
 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 4:46:48 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 2:27:32 PM UTC-7, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Mathematics is not less SCIENCE than Physics or any other.
> > 
> > Just a quick explanation: in English the word "science" normally refers
> > to what is also called "natural science". So in English: physics,
> > chemistry, etc. are "sciences" while mathematics is not "science",
> > it's "mathematics".  Likewise philosophy is not science, it's "philosophy".
> > 
> > This usage is not hard and fast but it's common.
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> Many years ago, in one of the technical journals, one writer cast the
> discussion of science and mathematics in a Socratic dialog.  The student
> came to Socrates asking whether he should study science or mathematics.
> Socrates questioned him about whether he wanted to know his subject for
> certain or whether he wanted to study reality.  The discussion evolved
> to the point that only mathematics is certain but science will always be
> incomplete, therefore uncertainty.
> 
> However, given mathematical incompleteness theorems, maybe mathematics
> isn't so certain after all?

A theorem in math is about as certain as things ever get. That there are 
that even in mathematical worlds are not yet provable or disprovable 
dioes not make things any more certain anywhere outside of mathematics.

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

#386155

Użytkownik "A Nony Mouse"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:abc-15A713.18391917062016@news.giganews.com...

|A theorem in math is about as certain as things ever get.

Really? Which one, pythagorean theorem from EG or its
contradiction from non-euclidean geometry?

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

#386171

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 12:40:43 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "A Nony Mouse"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:abc-15A713.18391917062016@news.giganews.com...
> 
> |A theorem in math is about as certain as things ever get.
> 
> Really? Which one, pythagorean theorem from EG or its
> contradiction from non-euclidean geometry?

You are confused as usual. Mathematical concepts are by their very structure eternal
and immutable. This is simply how mathematics is set up.

All those changes like pythagorean theorem in non-euclidean geometries and so on
are simply redefinitions, so the same word is used to denote a slightly different thing.

--
Jan

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

#386409

On June 17, JanPB wrote:
> in English the word "science" normally refers
> to what is also called "natural science". So in English: 
> physics, chemistry, etc. are "sciences" while mathematics is not. 
> Likewise philosophy is not science, it's "philosophy".

But science is a branch of philosophy.
 
> This usage is not hard and fast but it's common.

What is uncommon, is understanding the relationship 
between science and philosophy.

--
Rich

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

#386227

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.

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

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

#386238

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:65edncMnCtmOTPvKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...

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.

Criterium of belonging to mathematics, poor idiot, is - form.
Not content.
If you formalize properly a theory that chicken should be
fed on sand, you'll have a mathematical theory stating
that chicken should be fed on sand. And poor idiot Jan
will announce it an "immutable mathematical truth".


And a part of euclidean geometry is about "rod and compasses"
constructs. Directly real.

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

#386261

On 20/06/2016 4:50 AM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
>
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:65edncMnCtmOTPvKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> 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.
>
> Criterium of belonging to mathematics, poor idiot, is - form.
> Not content.
> If you formalize properly a theory that chicken should be
> fed on sand, you'll have a mathematical theory stating
> that chicken should be fed on sand. And poor idiot Jan
> will announce it an "immutable mathematical truth".
>
>
> And a part of euclidean geometry is about "rod and compasses"
> constructs. Directly real.
>
>

You're conflating "theorem" and "theory", again. They mean different things.

Sylvia.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web