Re: DB clasical structure violation

alfredo_at_nospam_ncs.es (Alfredo Novoa) wrote in message news:<3d20b8cb.1633789_at_oak.cise.ufl.edu>...

I know I've taken ages to reply to this ... but it's taken me ages to understand what you're getting at ...

> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:20:18 +0100, "Anthony W. Youngman"
> <thewolery_at_nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I would say a theory is a logically and mathematically consistent set of
> >statements. That's pretty much your second definition.
> >
> >This is then proved (using statistics) to be a reasonable approximation
> >to what is observed in the real world, at which point it then falls
> >within the scope of your first definition.
>
> It is not only theory, it is scientifical theory.
>
Please explain the difference ...
> >
> >Take Newton's theory of Gravity ... if we exclude "fast" moving objects
> >(eg > c/10) and "massive" objects (eg > earth), we can prove that it
> >matches the real world perfectly well for our purposes.
> >
> >I look at SQL and set theory in exactly the same way - set theory is a
> >self-consistent view, that, within limitations matches the real world
>
> Set theory is not this. Set theory is a tautological abstract
> reasoning, it is not based on the real world although it may be
> inspired on it.

What do you mean? Newton's theory of Gravity is presumably also a tautological abstract reasoning. And how on earth can something be "inspired by" and yet "not based upon"?

Newton's Theory of Gravity has exactly the same relationship with and applicability to the real world as set theory.
>
> Set theory (and mathematics) is not science in the strict sense of the
> word. Set theory and mathematics are tautological (orthogonal to the
> real world).
>

What is science, if not applied statistics? Please draw for me a clear distinction between Pure Mathematics at one end of the spectrum, and Applied Physics at the other.

To my mind, Pure Mathematics is playing with numbers for the sake of playing with numbers. Applied Maths and Theoretical Physics are then playing with logically coherent mathematical models which may or may not bear some resemblance to the real world. Applied Physics is then the application statistics (part of pure maths?) to correlate the mathematical model with observed reality.

In short, I don't have a clue as to what you imply is the difference between "theory" and "scientific theory". To me, they are exactly the same thing - a mathematically and logically coherent model.

But I then have to map this to the observed world, and to my mind all too often set theory doesn't map comfortably with what I observe.

Cheers,
Wol Received on Tue Jul 09 2002 - 10:28:15 CEST