So I was wondering why a single problem can have two entirely different approaches (based on contradictory axioms) to solving it? For example, consider sunlight. Sunlight always comes from a slightly different direction than we see because of refraction. They can be studied with Euclidean geometry (e.g. Snell's law), but they can also be studied with a specific non-Euclidean geometry made for them. They are based on completely different sets of axioms so why can they arrive at the same answer and conclusions?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I can't think of other examples right now. Would appreciate it if someone would answer :)

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# A math foundation problem, of sorts

Loading...

Similar Threads - math foundation problem | Date |
---|---|

Does set theory serve as the foundation of ALL math? | Jul 28, 2012 |

Fractal Geometry and the Foundations of Maths | Jan 15, 2012 |

Historical and Philosophical Foundations for Mathematics, Writing a Math Book | Feb 14, 2011 |

People who do foundations of maths? | May 13, 2009 |

Why no foundations of maths in Mellienium problems? | Sep 8, 2007 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**