I think you might be missing my point. It is not pure math. It is a sentence that describes a relationship. Energy is not math, nor is matter, nor is light. The symbols that describe the relationship between them is math.
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:14 AM, allan deheretic <[email protected]>wrote: > Sorry Chuck it is pure math. it simply is a math formula nothing more. > if you can not create the formula to back up you physics theory it > becomes invalid. > nothing wrong with that. > I work once for a man who was a theoretical mathematician,, creating the > programs to run is math formulas to see if they worked out. > Once I asked him if he knew what it did. his reply was he didn't know it > was a formula and it worked out mathematically and to him that was all that > was important. where his mind was I had no idea.. my job was to plug it into > the computer.. and that doesn't mean I understood the formula..because i > didn't ,, he had to talk me through them.. do this , then this , then this , > type of thing.. but that was his way of double checking is work. > He was a great man to work with.. and that is really all I remember of him. > Allan > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Chuck Bowling < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> E = mc2 is not math. It is a relationship between energy and matter that >> is described by math. I don't believe I ever said that an equation wasn't >> math. But then, I've already said this and it appears that we are both >> talking about different things. I don't really know what point you are >> trying to make. >> >> As to whether it is subjective or objective, I would fall on the side of >> objective. Math is a language that lends itself to rigid formalism. It is >> true that someone with sufficient knowledge of math can make pretty much any >> argument that he wants and make it appear to be true. However, if the >> argument is examined 'under the microscope' by way of mathematical proofs >> it's truth or falsity will come out. >> >> I don't have any idea what your second point is. Are you saying that >> string theory is math? >> >> If so I disagree. String theory is a theory that is best described by >> math. >> >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:45 AM, ornamentalmind < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Here again we agree in some ways. >>> >>> Yes, math is a language. It is a tool used to convey concepts. As an >>> aside here, I’ll add that because of this, it is subjective rather >>> than objective. >>> >>> However, when you say that an equation is not math, even taking into >>> account the semantics of the thing, in context (string theory) you are >>> incorrect. >>> >>> See: http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/index.html >>> Which leads to: http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/math2.html >>> Which leads to: http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/math3.html >>> >>> This all comes from the site: >>> http://www.superstringtheory.com/index.html >>> >>> Your last paragraph, being non sequitur, I’ll just ignore for now. >>> >>> >>> On May 11, 11:12 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:10 PM, ornamentalmind < >>> [email protected] >>> > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > Thanks for restating your position on the relevancy of the math used >>> > > in string theory. That is what you are stating, right?...that the >>> > > math in string theory is relevant. Also, that it is ‘real’ somehow? >>> > > That it is meaningful somehow? That it actually impacts our lives in >>> > > some non-philosophical way, right? Admittedly, I’m guessing on most >>> of >>> > > these points and await your true thinking. >>> > >>> > Uh, yea. If the math used to describe string theory is free of error >>> then it >>> > is relevant. I'm not sure why this should be a huge issue but, >>> whatever... >>> > >>> > > Lastly, we disagree that ‘math is math’ in the sense that math from >>> > > one era is as ‘relevant’ as math from another. I used the example of >>> > > E=mc2. . . something that I don’t see addressed by your response >>> > > unless that is that you somehow wish to equate the math ‘found in >>> cave >>> > > drawings created 30,000 years ago’ with it. Is that your >>> > > position?...that all math, from the simplest to the most complex is >>> > > just as ‘relevant’? I suggest that there are different levels of math >>> > > and of math complexity. I further suggest that math is a human >>> > > construct…*only*. >>> > >>> > First, E=mc2 is not math. It is a relationship that is described by an >>> > algebraic equation. I didn't feel the need to point that out so I >>> ignored >>> > it. Math is a language. It is a tool that is used to convey concepts. >>> > Nothing more or less. >>> > >>> > If a caveman 30,000 years ago had created a mathematically correct >>> construct >>> > it would be just as correct today as it was 30,000 years ago. >>> >> >> > > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan > > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, > >
