math riddle

[Kurt]

IMO, infinite is not an answer, just the limit of our mathematics...

[Nowhere]

Physics rather.

[Kurt]

Physics are not a human invention. It's a word used to describe/ rationalize what we see around us. Mathematics is just our way to make observations fit our theories. It's a tool with it's limitations. That's why we always need to expand it (as with matrices, for ex.).

Then there's the fact that we basically don't know much about the Universe, hence we make mistakes too when using the tools we invented (does the "ultraviolet catastrophe" ring a bell?)

[cjolley]

...Mathematics is just our way to make observations fit our theories...

What does that mean?

[Nowhere]

IMO, Kurt, you have this a little other way around...

And lack of understanding what was at the beginning is definetely limit of physics - we simply (?) don't have workable theory of quantum gravity (or whatever they will call it...) yet.

[Tjalfe]

now with the added mass from the earth being that 15cm larger in radius, how much more would gravity affect us?.. with space dust landing on earth all the time, how long will it take before we reach this extra mass?

edit: damn typos

[Kurt]

IMO, Kurt, you have this a little other way around...

And lack of understanding what was at the beginning is definetely limit of physics - we simply (?) don't have workable theory of quantum gravity (or whatever they will call it...) yet.

You don't know what stress I was under writing this 3 lines thingy on my Tablet PC (explains Some weird punctuation) with a small war going on With 3 generations involved, a battery about to die, a stupid Linksys AP (apparently I got the old and buggy version) that Wouldn't appear even when I was in front of it, I didn't quite write what I intended to (so forget previous post ;-) ).

Now everybody is asleep and the AP went through 2 firmware upgrades and is about stable...

Supposing we're right On the theory bit (which we're often Not!), mathematics are not always adapted to describe everything (can't go very far with 1+ 1), so we need to invent new concepts (vectors, then matrices, derivatives, etc). [There are problems like the Planck constant, which is not very constant at all... or other mathematical errors due to the inaccuracies that find their ways into equations]

The calculus can become very complex and then we get "infinite" as a result - but it might not reflect reality. Hence it in not a limit of physics, but mathematics [when I say "physics", I don't mean "physics science", I mean what goes on in the Universe] .

we can't easily verify these infinites due to technological limitations (for black holes, for ex) but it's not that because it can't be proven wrong (yet), it is right.

In general I believe lots of " infinite" results to be "workable" theory. We'll find something better eventually.

[Nowhere]

OK, now I'm positive you're confused...

If there is any science in which we can be sure about something, it's mathematics. It's the only science, I think, in which something can be proven beyond any doubt. One of the reasons is that we don't explore physical universe by doing so, we explore concepts. And more, we do not invent them IMHO, we discover them. (and why do you talk about Planck while discussing mathematics; it lies in the field of physics)

Infinite (mathematical singularity) in itself isn't nothing bad in mathematics - remomber, the world of concepts and ideas, not our world. Of course it sometimes leads to physical singilarities, when at some point our laws/equations tell us that something is infinite (and therefore...it becomes partly unworkable for scientist), but that doesn't mean that mathematics is flawed, but simply that physical theory is for such cases. it is COMPLETELY limit of physics.
And you're talking about inaccuracies/mathematical errors like that's a problem of mathematics itself; physics again: if it can't find exact value of constants or construct better suited theory/equations...too bad.
(and what do you mean by "we can't verify them"? that they are unworkable? Of course they are like that, but it's because our current theory from the field of physics, not mathematics is unworkable in such cases and gives us unworkable results - we simply need new physical theory)

Yes we'll find something better - but that's the purpose of physics, there's nothing wrong with mathematics!


You really have this other way around. If in your first sentence about the subject "physics" and "mathematics" (plus some other changes) would exchange places, than that would be about right.

"Mathematics are not a human invention. It's a world that we also use to describe/rationalize what we see around us. And that use can be called physics in some cases - science in which we construct theories to comply with obervations. In its current state it's a tool with it's limitations. That's why we always need to expand it (as with theory of gravity, for ex.)."

Much better version.

[Wombat]

We can prove things conclusively in mathematics. But that's because it isn't science. It's another division of philosophy. The entire world of mathematics is an artificial construct. It is because of that and only that that we can say things *must* be true, because that's how we have defined them.

[GuchiGuh]

All life is biology. All biology is physiology. All physiology is chemistry. All chemistry is physics. All physics is math.

Dr. Stephen Marquardt

[Wombat]

Well, he's wrong. All physics is definitely not pure math.

[KvHagedorn]

All life is biology. All biology is physiology. All physiology is chemistry. All chemistry is physics. All physics is math.

Dr. Stephen Marquardt

I suppose this is supposed to pass for wisdom because the guy has a "Dr." in front of his name.

It's just mental masturbation.

[Wombat]

The "Dr." is a plastic surgeon, not a PhD.

[Nowhere]

Mathematics isn't science? I don't know, different kind of science but definetely science in my book

edit: I was writing the thing above and just wanted to make sure about one little thing in clasification of "science" (I'll explain right away why it's in "") on polish wikipedia. And thanks to this now I know why I disagree with Wombat
"Science" (nauka) in Polish has much broader meaning - not only (as I understand...) what we call natural science, but I'd say that it applies to everything that tends to use scientific methodology/logic...

[Brian Ellis]

Oxford (note the entry for mathematical science):

science

ME.
[Old French from Latin scientia knowledge, from scient- pres. ppl stem of scire know: see -ENCE.]

1. a. The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied. Also, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute. Now only Theology, chiefly rendering scholastic terms. ME.

Pope My words no fancy'd woes relate: I speak from science.

â€* b. Theoretical perception of a truth, as contrasted with moral conviction (conscience). E–M17.

2. a. Knowledge acquired by study; acquaintance with or mastery of a department of learning. Formerly also in pl., (a person's) various kinds of knowledge. Now rare or obsolete. ME.

T. Gray Be love my youth's pursuit, and science crown my Age. ;
b. Skilful technique, esp. in a practical or sporting activity. Now rare. L18.

3. a. A particular branch of knowledge or study; a recognized department of learning; spec. each of the seven medieval liberal arts (see ART noun1 4). Now rare. ME.

B. F. Westcott Theology is the crown of all the sciences. transf.: C. Lamb Facts..are trifles to a true adept in the science of dissatisfaction. ">
â€* b. A craft, trade, or occupation requiring trained skill. L15–M17.

c. An activity or discipline concerned with theory rather than method, or requiring the systematic application of principles rather than relying on traditional rules, intuition, and acquired skill. Freq. opp. art. L16.

R. Kirwan Previous to the year 1780, mineralogy..could scarce be deemed a Science. OUP">&nb

d. A branch of study that deals either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less comprehended by general laws, and which includes reliable methods for the discovery of new truth in its own domain; spec., any of the natural sciences (see sense 4a below). Freq. (sing. & in pl.) with specifying word. E17.
biological science, exact science, experimental science, marine science, mathematical science, moral sciences, natural science, nuclear science, physical science, etc.; computer science, earth science, life science, plant science, soil science, etc.; bioscience, neuroscience, pseudo-science, etc.

mathematics

L16.
[Pl. of MATHEMATIC noun, prob. after French (les) mathématiques, repr. Latin mathematica neut. pl., Greek (ta) mathUmatika: see -ICS.]

Orig. (treated as pl., freq. with the), the sciences or disciplines of the quadrivium collectively; later, these and optics, architecture, navigation, etc. Now (treated as sing.), the abstract deductive science of space, number, quantity, and arrangement, including geometry, arithmetic, algebra, etc., studied in its own right (more fully pure mathematics), or as applied to various branches of physics and other sciences (more fully applied mathematics). Colloq. abbreviation maths, (N. Amer.) math.
higher mathematics: see HIGH adjective, adverb, & noun. new mathematics: see NEW adjective.

(my bolding)

So maths is a science by these two definitions. However, I like "abstract deductive science"