Is Math Flawless or Can it be Wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chronos
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the nature of mathematics, questioning whether it can be flawed or incorrect, particularly in relation to the statement "1 + 1 = 0" and its implications for the constants of nature. Participants engage in various theoretical and conceptual considerations, touching on logic, axioms, and the application of mathematics in real-world scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that changing mathematical truths would require altering the underlying logic, which could lead to different representations of constants rather than their actual change.
  • Others argue that mathematics is inherently correct as it can be experimentally validated, citing examples like counting physical objects.
  • A few participants propose alternative mathematical frameworks, such as using complex matrices for representing money or discussing the implications of different axioms on mathematical outcomes.
  • There are discussions about the philosophical nature of mathematics, with some stating that it resembles a philosophy more than a science, and questioning the applicability of certain mathematical constructs to real-world situations.
  • One participant introduces the idea that in specific mathematical contexts, such as vector spaces, "1 + 1" could equal "0" under certain conditions, suggesting a more abstract interpretation.
  • Several comments reflect on the human aspect of mathematics, noting that errors arise from poor assumptions rather than flaws in the mathematical system itself.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on whether mathematics can be flawed. Some maintain that mathematics is always correct within its defined axioms, while others explore the idea that different contexts or interpretations could yield alternative outcomes.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the discussion involves various assumptions and interpretations of mathematical principles, and that the applicability of mathematics to physical reality is a complex issue that may not have straightforward answers.

  • #31
doubleteam9 said:
anyone here heard of modular arithmetic?

Yes, plenty of us. Though how many of the people in the thread that is over two years old still read these posts is another matter entirely. Or indeed so is how many of us who post now were around at the time... Nevermind those around at the time who couldn't be bothered with that thread since answering it would only create more pointless philosophical threads, and there might have been too many of those around...

In short, stop reviving the dead threads!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
russ_watters said:
Math isn't wrong - it works. You can prove 1+1=2 through experimentation with countless physical processes.

The fact that if you put one apple together with another apple doesn't prove anything about math, there're lot's of places in physics where 1+1 doesn't equal 2, for example:
velocities (relativity)
liquid volumes (1L of water + 1L of oil doesn't equal 2L of water/oil)
thats all i can think of now but i know that there're more.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K