Re: Should math be held to be literally the 'language of physics'?
From: Patrick Reany (reany_at_asu.edu)
Date: 11/02/04
- Next message: Pmb: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Previous message: vonroach: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- In reply to: shuba: "Re: Should math be held to be literally the 'language of physics'?"
- Next in thread: Patrick Reany: "Re: Should math be held to be literally the 'language of physics'?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 2 Nov 2004 07:13:18 -0800
shuba <tim.shuba@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message news:<tim.shuba-3C168D.20535031102004@news.individual.net>...
> Bilge wrote:
>
> > Patrick Reany:
> > >Request for comments:
> > >
> > >Should math be held to be literally the 'language of physics'? In
> > >other words, is the language of physics equal to, less than, or
> > >greater than mathematics?
> >
> > You post the most bizarre questions. The `language of physics',
> > is what ever physicsts find to be useful as a language of physics.
> > While a lot of physics is rather mathematical, mathematicians and
> > physicists do not generally have the same motivation for the way
> > they use that math. So, my guess is that the official language of
> > physics is ``math that tends to make mathematicians wince.''
>
> Nicely put. A similar statement could describe the more
> philosophical aspects of physics. This is yet another case of
> Chairman Reany demanding an exact definition of a term, in this
> case "language of physics", and missing the point again.
>
>
> ---Tim Shuba---
I don't see how one is required by my question to provide an "exact
definition of a term," you sycophantic moron. And what's wrong with
exact definitions, anyway?
Either set theory, algebra, geometry, trig, calculus, etc are
sufficient to formulate every aspect of a physical theory or they are
not. There is nothing bizarre about the original question. Talk about
missing the point.
Patrick
- Next message: Pmb: "Re: Is charge conserved between frames?"
- Previous message: vonroach: "Re: Energy of Gravity is Nonlocal"
- In reply to: shuba: "Re: Should math be held to be literally the 'language of physics'?"
- Next in thread: Patrick Reany: "Re: Should math be held to be literally the 'language of physics'?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|