Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- From: "T.H. Ray" <thray123@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:46:57 EDT
On Apr 1, 12:45 pm, "T.H. Ray" <thray...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
between
Patently absurd. Do you know the difference
a mathematics axiom and a physical principle?
Properly formulated, there is no difference between a
mathematics
axiom and a physical principle in a mathematized
physical theory.
Ridiculous claim. Suppport it with facts and references. That a physical
theory--the special and general theories of relativity, e.g.--is
mathematically complete, in no way implies that physics, or any
science, is based on a system of axioms. Mathematical
completeness implies only that the physical theory is
derived from first principles independent of empirical
evidence. (Empirical support has to be supplied in principle,
however, for the theory to survive.)
I am pretending nothing. My facts and references are sound.
What is wrong
with Peano's
axioms for arithmetic?
Shubee
Nothing. Do you have a point?
Yes. Why are you pretending that philosophers of
science and
mathematics have proved that the mathematization of a
physical theory
is impossible when no mathematician has ever verified
such a proof?
Shubee
Yours are nonexistent.
Tom
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The Goldbach-attempt of Shouyu and Zhanle Du
- Next by Date: Re: Exercise from "Categories for the Working Mathematician"
- Previous by thread: Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- Next by thread: Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
