How about p-adic K-theory and topology? This has some possible connection to physics, but physics most likely does not need all the mathematical theorem-proof aspects of this. We physicists after all tend to have a bit of a Babylonian maths perspective, as Feynman put it.
LC On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 3:10:51 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Over the past few decades there is an explosion of people who think the > "mathiest" math will help in advancing physics. > > This is a typical example: > > *Modern Physics formalized in Modal Homotopy Type Theory* > > https://ncatlab.org/schreiber/show/Modern+Physics+formalized+in+Modal+Homotopy+Type+Theory > > There are many other examples based on many other areas of advanced > mathematics. > > None of this stuff helps in understanding nature - supposedly what physics > is about, or is any way useful in using physics in real applications > (technology). > > It can all be interesting pure mathematics, but actually worthless. > > > Actually it's worse than worthless, It suggests nature (or rather, the > best code of nature we have so far) is this stuff. > > @philipthrift > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/66c93d36-3e27-45b7-aec5-57b7f8654954%40googlegroups.com.
