Re: theory and practice: ying and yang

From: Paul <paul_at_test.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:34:28 +0100
Message-ID: <42a04045$0$15012$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>

Alexandr Savinov wrote:

>>> For any naïve
>>> (classical) thinker real numbers is something really existing but if we
>>> look at the problems deeper we will see that they are not needed.
>>
>> Do you have any support for this somewhat startling revelation?

>
> Real numbers do not help in solving contemporary problems and this why I
> find this apparatus almost useless. They are used and will be used by
> inertia.

They are useful for standard calculus surely? Which has practical applications. Maths is only used as a *model* of reality, and often a continuous model is simpler and more useful in practice that a discrete model, even if the discrete model is actually more close to the reality. e.g. in general an civil engineer will find Newtonian physics more useful than quantum physics.

I think the issue of whether or not real numbers "exist" is a bit of a red herring. Ultimately all maths is just symbolic manipulation.

You're not a fan of Wolfram's book A New Kind Of Science, by any chance?

Paul. Received on Fri Jun 03 2005 - 06:34:28 CDT