Re: a < b implies 2^a < 2^b

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:51:51 +0100, Han de Bruijn
<Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> fed this fish to the
penguins:

whats with the penguin ?


Gonçalo Rodrigues wrote:

(snip)


Third, even if you proved it, why
would
theoretical physicists ditch what they already know?

well we kinda ditched newton and replaced it with relativity ...

of course newton's knowledge is still educated for its simplicity and trivial insights.

but the point is wrong theorems get ditched all the time... because they are wrong of course.



as for current physics i personally wonder if those infinite dimensions are really neccesary.

perhaps 150 dimensions are enough.

and considering equations ( differential equations mainly ) i can tell you ( you already know i assume )

that 3 dimensions already have a lot of dynamics and complexity ( e.g. 3d fractals and navier-stokes eq )

however i admit not being an expert at infinite dimensional vectors or physics , just my gut feeling.

i prefer to support hidden variable theories.


Regards,
G. Rodrigues

regards
tommy1729
.

Quantcast