npbreakthrough Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 we use mathematics to probe the limits of our universe, its a philosophical issue that because we can accurately describe our material universe with mathematics , a mathematical basis for our universe is implied, but what if that is not accurate, and instead our failure to completely understand our universe, even our ability to ever fully understand our universe is because mathematics is too rigid perhaps the abstract ideas of mathematics invented by man fail because our universe is more analog then digital (i know analog and digital deal with something else, but its the best analogy i could think of at the moment, digital being mathematics) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 we use mathematics to probe the limits of our universe, its a philosophical issue that because we can accurately describe our material universe with mathematics , a mathematical basis for our universe is implied, but what if that is not accurate, and instead our failure to completely understand our universe, even our ability to ever fully understand our universe is because mathematics is too rigid perhaps the abstract ideas of mathematics invented by man fail because our universe is more analog then digital (i know analog and digital deal with something else, but its the best analogy i could think of at the moment, digital being mathematics) Mathematics is not rigid. Mathematics is the study of order, any order that the human mind can recognize. When mathematics is not adequate for the study of some orderly phenomena, we invent and develop new mathematics. Even apparent disorder can be studied, as with the theory of probability and chaotic topological dynamics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Please explain the title. Why number 1 flawed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 When mathematics is not adequate for the study of some orderly phenomena, we invent and develop new mathematics. Absolutely right, our history is full of such examples of physics motivating new mathematical discoveries. Newton and calculus is of course the classical example given. Please explain the title. Why number 1 flawed? I second that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Absolutely right, our history is full of such examples of physics motivating new mathematical discoveries. Newton and calculus is of course the classical example given. And Ed Witten (amongst many others) shows that this process is still on-going Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 And Ed Witten (amongst many others) shows that this process is still on-going Edward Witten has an amazing ability to see the "physics in mathematics" which has lead to exiting novel approaches to many mathematical questions, most notably in geometry and topology. Things like the Gromov-Witten invariant in symplectic field theory spring to mind which have their origin in string theory. Witten's biggest contribution is being able to relate ideas in string theory to mathematical questions to the benefit of both physics and mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyMcC Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I don't know about 1 being flawed, but it certainly is peculiar in that 1^n=1 and 1^(1/n)=1. Thus the number 1 might in fact represent a square, a cube, square root or a cube root. I have an interest in Fermat's last Theorem and this fact has always given me something of a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) I don't know about 1 being flawed, but it certainly is peculiar in that 1^n=1 and 1^(1/n)=1. Thus the number 1 might in fact represent a square, a cube, square root or a cube root. I have an interest in Fermat's last Theorem and this fact has always given me something of a problem. If you insert units all mysteries vanish. For example in 1^n=1, If the 1 on the left represents Meters, the 1 on the right will represent Meters^n: for n=2, that is square meter. The 1 on the left is not the same as the 1 on the right. Edited June 9, 2011 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 In my personal opinion the current number 1 is deeply flawed http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 In my personal opinion the current number 1 is deeply flawed http://www.bbc.co.uk...1/chart/singles But the REAL no. 1 is the greatest and without flaw -- just ask him. Witten's biggest contribution is being able to relate ideas in string theory to mathematical questions to the benefit of both physics and mathematics. Yes, thanks to Witten, string theory has become a terrific conjecture machine, particularly for algebraic geometers. That is of sufficient value to merit a Fields Medal. Someday somebody may even be able to define what string theory is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
npbreakthrough Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share Posted June 9, 2011 alright, thanks for everyone's replies, as for the title "is the number 1 flawed" i am not necessarily picking on just this number, i guess what i was trying to get at was how inadequate can numbers be when subjected to certain theoretical math but my questions were answered, with units and formulas, the strictness of a single digit can be more malleable and useful and with our ability to create new fields of mathematics we are constantly able to reform our current views thanks to everyone, replying to my posts especially drrocket michel123456 soon i will have my 30 posts and ill be able to move onto the religion and philosophy threads where i am much better suited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baric Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I don't know about 1 being flawed, but it certainly is peculiar in that 1^n=1 and 1^(1/n)=1. Thus the number 1 might in fact represent a square, a cube, square root or a cube root. I have an interest in Fermat's last Theorem and this fact has always given me something of a problem. This is also true for 0, although the curve is discontinuous for 0^(0/n) at n=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now