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: Matheology § 300
Replies: 63   Last Post: Jul 18, 2013 2:23 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 6,970
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 300
Posted: Jul 16, 2013 3:08 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

> Am Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 08:46:16 UTC+2 schrieb Virgil:
> > > On Monday, July 15, 2013 8:58:19 AM UTC+2, Virgil wrote:
> > > > Am Montag, 15. Juli 2013 07:51:47 UTC+2 schrieb Albrecht:
> > > > > > Modern math ist the only "science"
> > > > Math is not a science at all.
> > > > Nothing is proved or disproved in mathematics by looking at physical
> > > > evidence.

> > > > > You apply the Anglo-Saxon sight of this things and take it as overall
> > > > > truth.

> > > Suitable for your daily demonstrated arrogance.
> > > > Other nations take math as science and with good arguments: there are
> > > > some

> > > basic principles about the working within the subjects. These principles
> > > are
> > > e.g. accuratness, apply of logic, confirmability, etc.

> > Applied mathematics may take into account ow well the mathematics
> > conforms to the physical world, but pure mathematics does not.
> > All proofs of all mathematical theorems are based purely on their
> > conforming to purely mathematical assumptions like axiom systems.
> > The ultimate proof of Fermat's last theorem, for example, does not rely
> > on any sort of physical evidence or conformity with the physical world
> > whatsoever.

> > > > And you are a second time wrong: Parts of math are proveable by
> > > > physical

> > > evidence.
> > I know of no theorem of pure mathematics whose proof relies in any way
> > on physical evidence.
> > If you think otherwise, perhaps you can cite some examples of
> > mathematical theorems whose proofs rely on physical evidence in support
> > of that claim.

> > > Math is developed that way over tens of thousands of years. Sadly,
> > > todays students are not aware oft this facts.

> > The earliest evidences of what we would now call mathematics is no more
> > than about 5000 to 6000 years old, from ancient Egypt, and is certainly
> > not several tens of millennia as yo cliam.

> > > > And, yes, Einstein. Math is pure, that means, 1+1=2, and not a little
> > > > bit

> > > more than 2 or less than 2. That's the great difference between math and
> > > natural science. So what?

> > > > Don't forget: Einstein had poked his tongue out at you. Think about it.
> > Einstein agrees with me that pure math has nothing to do with the
> > physical world:
> > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to
> > reality, they are not certain; and as
> > far as they are certain, they do not refer
> > to reality. It seems to me that complete
> > clearness as to this state of things first
> > became common property through that new departure
> > in mathematics which is known by the name of
> > mathematical logic or ŚAxiomatics.ą The progress
> > achieved by axiomatics consists in its having
> > neatly separated the logical-formal from its
> > objective or intuitive content; according to
> > axiomatics the logical-formal alone forms the
> > subject-matter of mathematics, which is not
> > concerned with the intuitive or other content
> > associated with the logical-formal. . . .
> > [On this view it is clear that] mathematics
> > as such cannot predicate anything about
> > perceptual objects or real objects. In
> > axiomatic geometry the words Śpoint,ą Śstraight
> > line,ą etc., stand only for empty
> > conceptual schemata."
> > Albert Einstein
> > --

>
> Clearly you are unable to learn something new. In spite of that I tell you:


I find that many of the the things you TRY to tell me are false.

> Since mankind counts, mankind does math. Thus since more than tens of
> thousands of years.



Where is your evidence that, prior to the invention of writing, mankind
ever counted anything?

> And I am able to prove 1+1=2 by physical evidence. Perhaps you are not.

I am able to prove it from the standard definitions of 1 and 2 without
any appeal to any physical evidence whatsoever , but in the absence of
any such definitions do not believe it can be proved at all.





I
--




Date Subject Author
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
LudovicoVan
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
Tucsondrew@me.com
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
LudovicoVan
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
Tucsondrew@me.com
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
LudovicoVan
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
LudovicoVan
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
LudovicoVan
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
LudovicoVan
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
LudovicoVan
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/15/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
albrecht
7/15/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/15/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/15/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/15/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
albrecht
7/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
LudovicoVan
7/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
LudovicoVan
7/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/17/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/17/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/17/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Ralf Bader
7/17/13
Read Re: Matheology �Organization: Anon
Virgil
7/17/13
Read Re: Matheology �Organization: Anon
Tanu R.
7/18/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/17/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
albrecht
7/17/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/17/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/17/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/17/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/17/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
fom
7/15/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/15/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
fom
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 300
LudovicoVan
7/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/14/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil
7/14/13
Read Re: WMytheology � 300
Virgil
7/15/13
Read Re: WMytheology � 300
Virgil
7/15/13
Read Re: Matheology � 300
Virgil

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.