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 ]
albrecht

Posts: 1,136
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Matheology § 300
Posted: Jul 17, 2013 1:41 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Am Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 21:08:52 UTC+2 schrieb Virgil:
> > 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 ?Axiomatics.? 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 ?point,? ?straight
>
> > > line,? 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?



What do you define as the invention of writing? If people scoring lines in bones, was that writing? Or not before the use of letters like a, b, c, ...?

Be sure, there are very profound books about that issue. But not good for ignorants.


>
>
>

> > 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.
>
>


If you would live in a world in which there is no physical evidence that 1+1=2 (e.g. you were a grease drop in a soup) than you would never have had the idea for this proof.


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.