Random Philosophy/Physics 2

norsenerd · Postby **norsenerd** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 2:11 pm

penguinita: Math and physics while they feed into each other granted are vastly diferent sciences. The reaserch methond that goes into math and into physics (even ourly theoreticl physics) is completly diferent for one. There is a lot of math that dosn't involve anythign wiht physics at all. So Newton "invented" calulus to help describe physics but why did Libnetz (the true inventor of calculous acording to me). Also gauss's theroms are mathamatical theroms that simply aply alot to physics and gauss was a mathamatition. It's hard to describe if you're not learning about both of them rigorusly but math and physics have diferent thought proceses and mean diferent things. Just because the two help each other dosn't mean their the same. If that were true EVERY disapline would be the same and that clearly isn't true.  <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> and all of what i've written is jsut my opionoin, i'm trying to perswade you, not tell you off. (just trying to get the tone of voice correct via this soundless medium)</td></tr></table>  I agree. And BSP: Here are other few thigs to think about. First 0*x = 0 only when x does not equal a limit that is inf. x/0 = inf this has to be phased as a limit but is true only when x is not equal to 0. inf*x = inf also is a limit but is true only when x is not equal to 0. x/inf = 0 once again can only be a limit and is only true when x is finite. All the others are indeterminate like inf/inf inf-inf 0^0 0*inf. Cosider this fun fact 0^x=0 but x^0=1! Also here are some other problems. The size of the set of intergers is infanite but the same goes for the size of the set of reals. But the reals cannot be placed into a one-to-one corespondace with the intrgers (there are more real numbers then integers) like the integers can be placed into one-to-one corespondance with the natural (counting) numbers (thus there are as meny counting numbers as integers despite for every counting number ther is the oposite and you have to add 0 <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... s/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /> ) The infinity that coresponds to real numbers is bigger then the infinity that coresponds to integers and natural numbers (which is the same). This all goes to cardnal number and ordinal number therory if any of you are interested on reading about that. Strikly speeking infinity is a "size" of sets. It's nike a number but not quite.

penguinita · Postby **penguinita** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 3:27 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (norsenerd @ Dec 6 2003, 12:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Just because the two help each other dosn't mean their the same. If that were true EVERY disapline would be the same and that clearly isn't true.  </td></tr></table>  but cant you derive everythign from first principles? given enough time and muonkyes banging on typwriteres? (by 'everything' i mean all real sciences, by 'all real sciences' i mean all hard sciences. ) (and perhaps now i'll stop mixing my metaphors with my foot in my mouths) <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... iggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /> on a more serous note- lets agree to disagree. or agree that the sciences and math are all very intertwined. we both come to this discussion w/ a different background in the maths and physics- your doubling in htem, whereas i'm not and i'm finished w/ all my required phys and pure math classes (i just have one more (year long) applied math class left- altho for an 'applied math' class, we spend alomst all of each lecture proving stuff... thats called irony), so i've prolly missed some of the more theroretical stuff in both disiplines then you've gotten... oh well EDIT- just realized i was restating what you said due to a delay of about an hour betwen reading your comment and writing mine.... so just chalk this up to me rambling. i'll stop now then.

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 5:49 am

I wanted to step aside from this for a while at first; I didn't want to get in the way... I'm currently studying computer engineering, where a lot of physics and math have to come together to describe and design computer systems. As the saying goes, too many cooks spoil the broth. As disciplines go, physics and math are very different. Physics often employs the use of mathematics (including but certainly not limited to algebra, geometry, calculus, probability, statistics, discrete mathematics, and a couple other systems I haven't studied) because much of physics is about explaining what is really going on out there and within here. In trying to find an explanation to reality, physics seeks formulas, logical conclusions, and quantifiable facts. Many of those are constructed by mathematical models that are adjusted to fit observed measurements and predict measurements not yet made. Mathematics is pure, unitless numerical manipulation that seeks patterns and logical truths about numbers theselves. The problems there are mainly concerning whether something can be solved or proven, and if so, why or how. The principles of math are very stongly rooted because they are proven to be correct, whereas much of physics is about theory and is for the most part correct until measurements become accurate enough to determine that once undetectable errors are merely undiscovered terms in the appropriate modeling equation. Physics is an exploration, like voyagers building a map of a new world. Math, however, is a construction, like the raising of an immense and intricate building upon a solid foundation.

HerrSkofild · Postby **HerrSkofild** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 5:50 am

see the attatched html file (may not work right in IE...try using <a href='http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firebird/' target='_blank'>firebird</a>) ...exactly EDIT: bloody 'ell...the attatchment not opening as html...hold on...i will upload and link to EDIT2: <a href='http://a.1asphost.com/UTInc/miscstuff/S ... rscat.html' target='_blank'>here</a>...i am leaving the attatchment so anyone who wants to know how i did it can see how...

norsenerd · Postby **norsenerd** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 11:43 pm

Way to go Tavis. What you said was excelent and very poetic. I tip my hat to you (and almost never do that). Just today somebody said that physisits answer to mathamatitions while mathamatitions answer to nobody. I janda like that but I don't know what I think about that.

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:35 am

I think they all answer to each other, because if a person were to have one apple and take two more and not have three apples when it's done, mathemeticians would be in a real fix since the laws of reality would not be what we intuitively think they should be.

penguinita · Postby **penguinita** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 1:30 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Tavis @ Dec 6 2003, 03:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> The principles of math are very stongly rooted because they are proven to be correct, whereas much of physics is about theory and is for the most part correct until measurements become accurate enough to determine that once undetectable errors are merely undiscovered terms in the appropriate modeling equation.</td></tr></table>  (emphasis added by me) i've gotta run- lotsa stuff to do tonight and in the next coupla days- but here's a side note: physics- and all science- is never proven correct, it can only be proven (eg. by counterexample) incorect. but since this terminology is often akward, ppl- even scientics- can slip inot saying stuff like: "this experiment proved einstien's GR thoery" or some such. you can only ever have data and results htat "supports", "sugessts", "doesn't contradict" the theory. i'll try to post a longer repsonce to the recent posts in this thred soon. and the basic-est principles of math would be the axioms, and those are just assumed.

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 1:54 am

Penguinita, actually, several mathematic principles are proven correct solely by the logical analysis of a postulate, a part of math that is known to be true. Everything else is amatter of deduction. While there are many forms of conjecture in mathematics, they are never accepted as facts until a formal proof can be made, and they have been made. And note that as physics was concerned, I never said they were 100% correct, but were mostly correct, as any new findings will seek to explain reality a little better than what we already know. When people thought the earth was flat, they were for the most part right, since Earth's curvature is much smaller than their ability to measure curvature. It was only after astronomers observed shadows on the moon, people travelled far enough from home to notice that the lengths of shadows varied with latitiude, and sailing vessels apparently dropped out of view after leaving harbor were people beginning to realize that it truly was round.. and then even longer to realize it wasn't spherical but slightly fattened around the equator. If you want a bit more understanding of how things are proven to be correct, I'm ready to offer more information.. after a couple computer science courses and a philosophy course in logic, I might be able to clarify those a bit further.

Burning Sheep Productions · Postby **Burning Sheep Productions** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 2:57 am

Ah buh guh? *Collapses again*

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 3:00 am

It's like, "Duh." *hopes that clears things up for BSP*

Burning Sheep Productions · Postby **Burning Sheep Productions** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 3:07 am

Water, need H2 thingy... physics... eating me... gak.

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 3:19 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (HerrSkofild @ Dec 5 2003, 11:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> see the attatched html file (may not work right in IE...try using <a href='http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firebird/' target='_blank'>firebird</a>) ...exactly EDIT: bloody 'ell...the attatchment not opening as html...hold on...i will upload and link to EDIT2: <a href='http://a.1asphost.com/UTInc/miscstuff/S ... rscat.html' target='_blank'>here</a>...i am leaving the attatchment so anyone who wants to know how i did it can see how...  </td></tr></table>  It works on Netscape stuff because the BLINK tag was a Netscape addition to HTML that Microsoft did not accept. To get around the blinking NOT, you can try a marquee, or animate a GIF that flashes the NOT on and off.

norsenerd · Postby **norsenerd** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 5:09 am

Tivis: Mathamatical ideas can be proven to be true only if you acept the axioms. If you acept diferent axioms then diferent hings would be true. Logic only provides the tools not any information. It is meaningless wihtout the values you give it. Penguitina: As a matter of fact Einstiens therory or relativity was proven to be worng in the 1960's actully. *shrugs* just interesting. Also to ilistrat the pint I made to Tavis: when I took A.P. government in high school there was one person in the class that though exacly the same as how I thought. Despite this we was the most conservitive person (with one exeption but he dosn't count because he was stupid) while I was the second most liberal person in the class. The difference was that we had diferent core values. Math in fact says nothing at all. Only after you acept a few "basic truths" does it have meaning. Another intersting point is that mathamatitions and physisists are raley interested in the exact value of things. Rather they go for aporximations because it's eisier. The entire field of calculus is bassed off of aproximations.

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 5:42 am

Nice... and you are correct in that liberal explanation, Norsenerd. Math is derived from things that are believed very strongly to be true. When I consider the basic level of those axioms (or postulates), however, I find no reason not to accept them. 1 + 1 = 2 is fairly strongly accepted as true, and mathematical functions tend to be difficult to ignore once they are named, defined, and discovered through manipulation of those axioms. Without those axioms, mathematics as we know it could not exist. Mathematicians, for the most part, are interested in getting as close to exact as possible. They would prefer an exact solution if it is not too difficult, but when that fails, they settle for getting as close as they can. Oh, and engineers are interested in approximations too, only they throw in fudge factors also known as tolerances. They seek numerical approximations that balance precision with the amount of work involved, since less work saves time and money, and saved money makes their bosses very happy.

Burning Sheep Productions · Postby **Burning Sheep Productions** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 6:21 am

Maths... the concept of maths is part of our human ability. We created maths for ourselves. But... if there's... two eggs. Wait... Maybe I'm still stonned.

Define Cynical Fan Forums

Random Philosophy/Physics 2

Who is online