Re: Is it our math letting us down?

PD wrote:
MobyDikc wrote:
MuDeltaKappa@xxxxxxxxx,


I've bee thinking about this too.

Our language for physics is not just our number system. Specifically,
it is equations.

Equations relate two statements together, and they typically involve
observable magnitudes.

F = ma

If you know m and a, you can use the relationship to find F.


What if you asked your question differently.


Could it be that using math is the right thing to do, but using
equations is not? Could we use another kind of math not based on
equations to make the next break through?

Equations are mathematical expressions that include an equal sign,
which is simply shorthand for the verb "is" or "is equivalent to".

Finding a math that doesn't include verbs is sort of like defining a
language that doesn't contain verbs:

This sentence no verb.


How about this:

X = 1
dX = 3
do while .T.
X = X + dX
enddo


There are two equal signs here, and in this case, they mean "set the
left hand side equal to the right hand side".

Now the "=" means "set equal to" not "is equal to".

We have a verb, we have equal signs, but we don't have eqautions.


By the way, the above can be seen a mathematial representation of
inertia in one dimension. If X is the object's position in one
dimension, and dX is the change in position it is currently undergoing,
we see that the object remains in uniform motion along that dimension.

What is the mathematical representation of inertia using equations?

.

Quantcast