Re: Riemann geometry, chicken or the egg?

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:30:00 GMT, Gerry Myerson
<gerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.


For example you might find a function that will produce the hex base
digits of pi to infintity. You could calculate more hex digits of pi
than are needed to describe anything in the physical universe. Is
this example the same as developing a geometry that describes more
htan 3 physical dimensions?


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.

The motion of planets and asteroids were available to the greeks and
it seems logical they might have wondered how you could describe an
ellipse.

.