David Petry wrote: > > > Mathematics that is applied necessarily has testable > consequences. For > one thing, bridges would fall down, airplanes > wouldn't fly, computers > wouldn't work, and weather reports would be wrong > half the time if > mathematics were flawed, and those things could be > considered to be > tests of mathematics. But even in a more abstract > sense, mathematics > has testable consequences. > > We can think of mathematics as a science which > studies the phenomena > observed in the world of computation. All of the > mathematics that has > the potential to be applied can be thought of that > way. As a conceptual > aid, we can think of the (abstract) computer as both > a microscope and a > test tube: it helps us peer deeply into the world of > computation, and > it gives us a way to perform experiments within the > world of > computation. Mathematics studies what we observe when > we look through > that microscope. Then, roughly speaking, a statement > may be said to > have testable consequences if it makes predictions > about the results of > computational experiments.<<
Scientists don't "test the mathematics," whether one speaks of engineering models or compututational experiments. They test theories written in mathematical language. The theory is independent of the result.
Why is it so common that people who know the least about mathematics and mathematicians are compelled to hold forth on it the most?
And what could you possibly mean by "Jewish mathematics," except to parrot some stupidly racist screed that we have rarely heard since Nazi propagandists condemned relativity as "Jewish science?"
As a troll, this article is superior. As criticism, it is stupid, obnoxious and anti-intellectual.