Re: use of real numbers in mathematics and physics
frisbieinstein_at_yahoo.com
Date: 12/09/04
- Next message: rst: "projective geometry in theoretical physics"
- Previous message: mike.james: "Re: Negative mass article in New Scientist"
- Maybe in reply to: John Baez: "Re: use of real numbers in mathematics and physics"
- Next in thread: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: use of real numbers in mathematics and physics"
- Reply: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: use of real numbers in mathematics and physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:33:19 +0000 (UTC)
robert j. kolker wrote:
> Tobias Fritz wrote:
> >
> > 2) Do you think that the real numbers are the appropriate system
for
> > formulating a unified physical theory? What about quantization of
> > spacetime?
> >
>
> My guess is that a purely discrete theory to describe physical
reality
> will be mathematically intractable. We have a dillema. The
mathematics
> we can use, cannot be literally true of reality. The mathematics that
> can be literally true of reality we cannot use because of its
difficulty.
>
> Go figure.
>
> Bob Kolker
In my opinion real numbers and other infinities are all useful
approximations. They are used because they are much more convenient
and there is no reason to believe that the difference is significant.
- Next message: rst: "projective geometry in theoretical physics"
- Previous message: mike.james: "Re: Negative mass article in New Scientist"
- Maybe in reply to: John Baez: "Re: use of real numbers in mathematics and physics"
- Next in thread: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: use of real numbers in mathematics and physics"
- Reply: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: use of real numbers in mathematics and physics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|