you wrote your own answer The symbols that describe the relationship between them is math. Allan
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Chuck Bowling < [email protected]> wrote: > 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, >> >> > -- ( ) I_D Allan If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
