> 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 ÅAxiomatics.Ä 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 Åpoint,Ä Åstraight > > line,Ä 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.