Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Mainstream Mathematics?
Replies: 32   Last Post: Jun 16, 2013 2:07 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Tucsondrew@me.com

Posts: 281
Registered: 5/24/13
Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Posted: Jun 13, 2013 2:11 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:07:46 PM UTC-7, Norbert_Paul wrote:
> Zeit Geist wrote:
>

> > On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:55:58 AM UTC-7, Norbert_Paul wrote:
>
> >> Zeit Geist wrote:
>
>

> > Any pure idealized mathematical theory usually doesn't
>
> > address numerical uncertainty.
>
>
>
> No. there is even a dedicated theory on errors.
>

I just meant that pure Mathematical theories, such
Set Theory, Topology, Abstract Algebra and even
Geometry and the Calculus, do not, at their basic
levels do not use or need a theory of measurement
and error. Of course, we can then apply those theories
and may then need some measurement/error theory.

>
> > Why isn't it feasible to use some numerical analysis
>
> > theory in connection with Topology.
>
>
> There are even researchers (within other communities) that
>
> suggest using topology to identify such numerical errors.
>


I could see that. If we use the measurements to define
the topology on some set (space) and then some funtion
on those measurements to determine the associated error
possibility/probability, where error function varies consistently
when the measurement is passed through a continuous function.

Just a bit of free associating there. The point is most
Mathematical ideas can be dealt with in a Topological
Space.
>
>
>

> >> r5: Claim: There do no exist "regions" A, B in IR^2 s.t.
>
> >> the following intersection pattern holds:
>
> >> fr A /\ fr B =/= {}
>
> >> int A /\ int B = {}
>
> >> fr A /\ int B =/= {}
>
> >> int A /\ fr B = {}
>
> >>
>
> >> Counter-Example:
>
> >> A = [-1,0] x [0,1] \/ ([0,1] x ([0,1] /\ Q)) is a "region"
>
> >> B = [0,1] x [0,1] is a region.
>
> >
>
> > Does A satisfy the condition for "region"?
>
> > Q is NOT connected.
>
>
>
> Almost got me. But ([0,1] x ([0,1] /\ Q)) is
>
> ([0,1] /\ Q) horiziontal strips of
>
> connected [0,1] x {q} for q in [0,1] /\ Q
>
> all attached to a vertical line {0} x [0,1].
>
>
> It is even path connected...


Yes, I think earlier I read it as (0,1) x [0,1] ^ Q.
I stand corrected.
Your counter-example seems solid.

>
> > Actually, don't we need
>
> > Every point of the Interior must be arbitrarily close to
>
> > some point of the Boundary.
>
>
>
> This cannot be true in R^2 with the natural topology. It is not
>
> claimed and not needed.
>
>
>

> > If you say:
>
> > Every point of the Boundary must be arb close to
>
> > some point of the Interior,
>
> > then then entire space, R^2 still works for the first counter-example.
>
> > Because the boundary is empty and vacuously satisfies
>
> > the condition.
>
>
> I dont say this. But the proof uses the statement and needs it.
>


Sorry, I should have used the Mathemtical "we" as I did above that.

>
> > I don't think he has a solid Topological foundation
>
> > to do the "topology" presented here.
>
>
>
> That is the point. But he claims so.
>
> Most important. That community compares everything that uses the
>
> vocabulary "topology" with 9-intersections. If it differs it is
>
> either "wrong" or "too complicated for the average scientific audience".


The theory may be sound, but only for "nice" sets that are "natural".
For instance, the set [0,1] ^ Q doesn't appear much in nature.
And if we are doing any measurements we can basically can
ignore it. After all, if for all real numbers in [0,1], we define

f(x) = 1, when x is rational
And
f(x) = 0 when x is irrational;

Then the integral from 0 to 1 over f(x) is 0.

But if its supposed to be a Mathematical theory then
It should create it own definition on the basis of
standard definitions.

It sounds like these people just don't know how Mthematics
works. It IS about catagorical statements. When certain
conditions A are met, we can also say that conditions B are met.

As far as being "wrong". He may have meant that Topology
has results or considers cases that don't correspond to
"reality". That does make it useless or improper for your needs.
It might just need some refinement and more in depth definitions.

ZG


Date Subject Author
6/11/13
Read Mainstream Mathematics?
Norbert_Paul
6/11/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
LudovicoVan
6/11/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Norbert_Paul
6/11/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Norbert_Paul
6/12/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
6/13/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Norbert_Paul
6/13/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
fom
6/14/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Norbert_Paul
6/14/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
LudovicoVan
6/14/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
fom
6/15/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
6/15/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
6/15/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
FredJeffries@gmail.com
6/16/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
6/11/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Norbert_Paul
6/11/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Norbert_Paul
6/12/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Norbert_Paul
6/13/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/13/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Peter Percival
6/13/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Norbert_Paul
6/11/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Peter Percival
6/11/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Rick Decker
6/13/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Dan Christensen
6/11/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
William Elliot
6/12/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Norbert_Paul
6/12/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
amzoti
6/12/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
David Bernier
6/13/13
Read Re: Mainstream Mathematics?
Stephen Wynn

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.