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

Topic: Matheology § 291
Replies: 28   Last Post: Jun 19, 2013 5:29 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: 794
Registered: 5/24/13
Re: Matheology § 291
Posted: Jun 18, 2013 4:45 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:07:20 PM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 20:46:40 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
>

> > On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 4:47:47 AM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > On Monday, 17 June 2013 21:46:17 UTC+2,
>
>
>

> > > In this case the question is whether the reals can be well-ordered - and absolutely nothing else! A theory that says yes and no does not contribute soemthing of value.
>
> > Yes, a theory that proves both "yes" and "no" as an answer to that question would be of no value. However, we have a system that proves "yes", and and another that proves "no". The former is invaluable in Real Analysis, whereas the latter is useful in Game Theory. Both of the are useful to the Sciences.
>
>
>
> Not at all. Both are completely useless. And that which says the reals can be well-ordered is especially useless because, nevertheless, the reals cannot be wel-ordered.
>


Real Analysis contribute much to Physics via Fluid Dynamics via Boundary Value Theory.

Game Theory/Decision Theory contributes much to Economic Theory.

These are real Scientific Theories.
Real Analysis contribute much to Physics via Fluid Dynamics via Boundary Value Theory.

Game Theory/Decision Theory contributes much to Economic Theory.

These are real Scientific Theories.

>
> > If the Scientist ( you ) wishes only to do his Science, then they need not worry about the Mathematics that produces their formulae. They can just ignore the Mathematical Black Box, and have faith that a formula, when applied correctly, will yield the correct result.
>
>
>
> In order to have faith, we have to drop theories which predict false results. Wee-orderability of the reals is such a false result.
>


The Scientists is not concerned about such Set-theoretical concerns.
However, they are unwittingly grateful that e Mathematician has laid
the ground work. That's the black box I spoke of.

>
> > > Look, when I ask what is 5 + 5? You may answer, depending on the axioms, 10 or not 10, then your answer shows just the same kind of value as matheology. The only empty set that has a right to ebe considered is the story of success of set theory. > In the system of "Rope Arithmetic" or "Gap Arithmetic" we have the true equation, 5 + 5 = 11.
>
>
>
> That does not touch my example of common arithmetics and does not help to excuse the false results of set theory.
>


It contradicts the results of common arithmetic, but this does not
make it "false".
It is still consistent and has actual real-world applications.

>
> Regards, WM


ZG



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.