Han de Bruijn wrote: > > Relativity, especially in combination with Quantum Mechanics, still *is* > something to think about. If you force me to choose, my choice would be > in favour of QM and against SR. Read the book "Relativity Reexamined" by > Leon Brillouin (: a great physicist BTW) and you will understand why.
False choice. Quantum field theory assumes special relativity. > > That is certainly not true. Don't forget that scientists have to employ > mathematics. But the reverse is not true: mathematicians don't have to > employ any other discipline than just mathematics. What if we find that > the math tools supplied to us are not good enough for our purposes?
There would be no physics without the theory of real variables and complex variables. Both these theories require set theory for their correct and rigourous development.
Cantor invented set theory in order to determine the most general class of functions which could be represented by Fourier Series.
