- #36

burakumin

- 84

- 7

So what? Sure, if we're speaking about sets as defined by the usual set theory (ZFC) almost all usual mathematical objects,chiro said:Structures are in terms of sets and numbers with things synthesized from those quantities.

**including numbers**, can be described as sets. So your statement is trivially true.

Who decided that this stuff was higher level than set theory, number theory or real/complex analysis? You did?chiro said:Forget all the high level stuff for the moment and get this stuff sorted first.

Buzz-words... mathematics as it exists... incredible ! If we take for example measure theory, its started in the late 19th century. It is a well established domain of mathematics and the foundation of the modern definition of integration.chiro said:Don't bother about buzz-words at the moment - use the language in mathematics as it exists and allow us to combine it so that we get an idea of what you are trying to say so that we can differentiate it from what already exists and then comment on the difference.

Well... affine space (that belongs to "high level stuff" I presume) is nothing more than the formal concept for the most usual geometric spaces ones considers when she informally speak about "line", "plane" or "3D space". You want geometry and continuity? Fine, read the definition of affine spaces. It's a good place to start.chiro said:In physics things are organized with continuity and geometry because that is how humans sense this information in the real world.

Indeed it appears I haven't addressed these questions in a language you, Chiro, seem to understand, I grant you that. Let me make a last attempt: the language I'm expecting ischiro said:The states will always be the same regardless of the approach since they map to exactly the same things - but the organization will be different and from what you are saying the thing you disagree with is how the information is organized and yet you haven't addressed these questions at all in any significant capacity.

**precisely**this kind of supposedly "high level buzz-words". Now I would suggest you to update your knowledge in mathematics (I told you: I'm not a teacher) rather than insinuating again and again I don't know what I'm talking about. But I have an idea that you won't be very receptive to such an advice.

I keep the reference. Thanks again.Andy Resnick said:That book ("Geometry of Physics") not an introduction to physics, it's an introduction to using algebraic geometry in physics.