Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Replies:
77
Last Post:
Mar 19, 2013 11:02 PM



Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 15, 2013 8:16 PM


In article <4e23b96ef1614b54b5af0403893e2ec0@googlegroups.com>, david petry <david_lawrence_petry@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 6:18:08 AM UTC7, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > > > I assumed that this relationship between "falsifiability" and > > mathematics allowed one to distinguish nonmathematical claims from > > mathematical claims. If not, what role does falsifiability play? In > > science, it distinguishes scientific hypotheses from nonscientific. > > Yes, exactly, I'm suggesting it would be reasonable to have falsifiability > play the same role in mathematics that it plays in science. Why do I need to > keep repeating that for you?
The reason that falsifiability is useful in science is because scientific conjectures are about how the physical world works and such conjectures can be compared to the was the world is observed to work.
But the theorems of mathematics are not about how the world works.
A mathematical model of how the world works can be shown to be a false representation, but it may still be mathematically perfectly consistent and "true" as a model, just not a good model of that aspect of reality.
Pure mathematicians are, by and large, not so much interested in how well a mathematical structure models some aspect of physical reality, where as applied mathematicians are, by and large, not so much interested in anything else. 



