home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Path: sparky!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ira.uka.de!uni-heidelberg!kalliope!gsmith
- From: gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
- Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
- Message-ID: <1992Nov13.194334.20447@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
- Sender: news@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (NetNews)
- Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
- References: <1992Nov7.214329.24552@galois.mit.edu> <1992Nov10.173302.27756@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> <344@mtnmath.UUCP>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 19:43:34 GMT
- Lines: 39
-
- In article <344@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
-
- >This is the question. Continuous models are the simplest to work with
- >mathematically, but are the simplest possibility as models of physical
- >reality? I do not think so.
-
- It isn't clear to me that any such distinction can be made.
-
- >There is good reason to suspect that no completed infinite totalities
- >exist.
-
- I know of none. Name some.
-
- The continuum that appears in formal mathematical systems is different
- >then what mathematicians mean by `the continuum'. The latter is a speculative
- >philosophical idea that cannot be formalized mathematically.
-
- If it is a speculative philosophical idea, it isn't mathematics. This
- sounds like gibberish.
-
- >For example the real numbers definable in any consistent formal system
- >are countable.
-
- Completely false, and downright silly to boot.
-
- I presume you meant something like there are countable models of
- the first order theory or something like that.
-
- >particular formal system.
-
- >Whether *all real numbers* exists or this phrase has any mathematical
- >meaning is itself a speculative philosophical question.
-
- In a word, bunk.
-
-
- --
- Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
- gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
-