Re: Riemann geometry, chicken or the egg?

In article <8a20k25nr9ec167rgvgdr4mkrrsul6pe95@xxxxxxx>,
bootlace <anonymous@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:58:33 GMT, Gerry Myerson
<gerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <fhcvj2pr6hke07r7aqt2kuds9gq9klbuee@xxxxxxx>,
bootlace <anonymous@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Many mathematical representations are borne from observation.

And many are not. You have found one that wasn't. So?

So you are saying that developing a geometry that describes more than
3 physical dimensions was a natural extension of math?

I thought we were talking about Riemannian geometry,
which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with
higher dimensions.

I don't know what "natural extension of math" means.

I believe that doing geometry without an eye to physics goes back
to ancient Greece. Conic sections were studied pretty much for
their own sake.

--
Gerry Myerson (gerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (i -> u for email)
.