Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:15:14 -0700
On 31 Aug 2006 04:48:12 -0700, schoenfeld.one@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 05:01:52 -0700, schoenfeld.one@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Han de Bruijn wrote:
schoenfeld.one@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Then there is no experiementation. Mathematics is not an experimental
science, it is not even a science. The principle of falsifiability does
not apply.
Any even number > 2 is the sum of two prime numbers. Now suppose that I
find just _one_ huge number for which this (well-known) conjecture does
_not_ hold. By mere number crunching. Isn't that an application of the
"principle of falsifiability" to mathematics?
Falsifiability does not _need_ to apply in mathematics. In math,
statements can be true without their being a proof of it being true.
Likewise, they can be false.
Except apparently for definitions.
Definitions can be false too (i.e. "Let x be an even odd").
Except that Virgil maintains that definitions in modern math are
neither true nor false.
In physics, a hypothesis is never true only verified xor false.
In physics a hypothesis is either contradictory or not.
~v~~
~v~~
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Virgil
- Re: Am I a crank?
- References:
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: schoenfeld . one
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: schoenfeld . one
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: schoenfeld . one
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: schoenfeld . one
- Re: Am I a crank?
- Prev by Date: Re: Am I a crank?
- Next by Date: Re: Am I a crank?
- Previous by thread: Re: Am I a crank?
- Next by thread: Re: Am I a crank?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|