On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 2:46:47 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Shouldn't that come out of the Wolfram Model?
>
> Probably could.
>
> @philipthrift
>

My look at this is it appears to be combinatorics or graph theory, Also it 
has features similar to the AI graphs of Nerode and others in the early 
days of AI. I am not certain how powerful this really is.

LC
 

>
>
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 1:00:33 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> 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/49a1b6d2-130f-4903-b5bf-6aa533457d9a%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to