Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Mathematics as a refuge from physics? Considering the internal difficulties with mathematics, that doesn't seem like such a great refuge...
by asdf on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What internal difficulties do you mean?

In the long run, we're all misquoted — not Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 02:20:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
2 + 2 = 5

Believe me.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:06:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, under suitable a definition of '='.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:38:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And a suitable definition of '+'. And of '2' and '5'.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:40:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And of "believe" and of "me".

In the long run, we're all misquoted — not Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:41:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then I'm glad we agree.

(under a suitable definition of "agree").

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:48:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And of "definition".

In the long run, we're all misquoted — not Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:55:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...in the recursive general case.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 11:33:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean the one that goes

 if(FALSE) then agree

?

In the long run, we're all misquoted — not Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 11:34:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Close.

I think the Uncertainty Principle should really be named the Indecisiveness Principle.

It's not that the Universe is random, it's more that it can't actually make up its mind about anything definite unless you stand over and force it to. (Boolean values included.)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 01:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the universe.  It is really hard to get them to make up their minds!  

The Fates are kind.
by Gaianne on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 01:44:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No we're creating the Universe to our image?

In the long run, we're all misquoted — not Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 03:05:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a reasonable explanation for why String Theory doesn't work.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 06:30:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, for example, the hoops you have to jump through to make set theory internally consistent...
by asdf on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 08:37:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It cannot be proven to be internally consistent, AFAIK.

In the long run, we're all misquoted — not Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 08:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you worry about that, just adopt some flavour of constructivism or other, and get on with your work. As a user of applied mathematics, every theorem you'll ever use will still be true, with a little more work.

In the long run, we're all misquoted — not Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 09:00:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Doesn't it bother you just a bit that the formal foundation for big chunks of mathematics gets wrapped around the axle so easily?
by asdf on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 10:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I think the formalists (Hilbert and his coterie) were a little extreme.

In the long run, we're all misquoted — not Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 03:06:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They were also proved wrong by Gödel.

In the long run, we're all misquoted — not Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 03:19:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you a platonist?

In the long run, we're all misquoted — not Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 03:19:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not sure I want to be pigeonholed philosophy-wise. It just seems weird that mathematics does, on the one hand, do an amazing job of providing tools that can be applied to physics (and the other practical arts) and give arbitrarily accurate results, but then at the same time it can get so completely fouled up itself when you try to do rigorous analysis...
by asdf on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 11:33:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series