Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Limits of maths

  1. May 18, 2005 #1
    Is the struggle to reach beyond relativity and quantum mechanics, beyond the big bang, possibly its creation and necessity to our logic, the result of structural problems with mathematics itself? The fundamental unit of maths is numbers, is it not? The discovery of zero or its inclusion in the number system (which ever way you like call it) as an origin point for starting to count is necessary for making sense of our whole system. But it leads to some natural consequences for the development of logic and therefore maths. It seems to me that all kinds of logical tricks are being used to get around this basic truth - multiverses, string theory, etc Maybe we need to consider that each move to a new understanding, each paradigm shift that gave us a new view meant a widening of the number system, or definition of what is actually being counted or how it is counted/measured. the problem is we take our eyes with us where ever we go and maths is our eyes, is it? Affecting the way we look at things and what we see as a reasonable problem and answer?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 18, 2005 #2
    The actual point is quite vague, "structural problems with mathematics itself". It seems as though you are talking about mathematics in general without really thinking about what it is, and what sort of "structure" is involved.

    The only remotely concrete example you give is zero; to suggest that zero poses a structural problem suggests a complete ignorance of modern algebra. Please give more specific examples.
     
  4. May 18, 2005 #3

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    That is a nice, pseudo logical argument, but it has no scientific content. As Crosson suggested, you need to make a specific point.
     
  5. May 18, 2005 #4
    "structural problems with mathematics itself". its not math its the human perceptoin of math that is flawed =]
     
  6. May 18, 2005 #5

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    There are no limits on maths, only on the creativity and ability of mathematicians.
     
  7. May 18, 2005 #6

    Alkatran

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Math can't be not math. If we can prove that nothing is not math, we have a proof by contradiction that math is everything. :smile:
     
  8. May 18, 2005 #7
    It is interesting that mathematicians are so evangelical about the universality of math, it is a symbolic language of description like any language. i admit is is special because it uses physical systems as its basis or at least the numerical relationships, but numbers and logic are limited and those limitations are important to the kind of things that system can handle. I am ignorant of modern algebra i'm just an average joe interested in understanding how the world works and i'm effected by the things people using math come up with. I'm not ignorant but my expertise, if i have any, is in the realm people not the technical sciences or theory associated with them. If mathematicians aren't looking at its limitations then they will be limited by them. As for other examples well I'll get back to you. I'm specifically interested in the possible connection between the big bang theory and math, because it seems to be where maths, physical laws break down.
     
  9. May 18, 2005 #8

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    :biggrin: :biggrin:
     
  10. May 18, 2005 #9

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    wildmandrake:
    Well, since you admit you're ignorant of maths, you're really not the one qualified to draw the boundary between what math can do, and what it can't do.
     
  11. May 18, 2005 #10
    Or are we talking about the axioms Mathematics is based on (typically Peano's)? And the limits this places on mathematics?

    -M
     
  12. May 18, 2005 #11

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Minor comment:
    "Or are we talking about the axioms Mathematics CAN BE based on (typically Peano's)?"
     
  13. May 18, 2005 #12

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think he is saying something like---
    Maths can describe black hole evaporation via Hawking radiation, and yet
    we have little possibility of finding out if it correct, it may be a model with
    no reality.
    Or math can describe quantasized space time, "or partly", and again it may
    be wrong.
    It is not the math that is wrong, it is how it is used, and testing any
    prediction it makes.
     
  14. May 18, 2005 #13

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Its worth noting that to some extent modern physics relies on math that does restructure traditional mathematical assumptions. For example, an important basis for much of modern physics (by which I mean post-classical physics, not simply physics conducted recently) is abstract algebra. Abstract algebra, such as group theory and non-communitive algebras, basically involves taking the rules of algebra that you learned in high school and changing them. For example, in some varieties of group theory, it is possible to choose an A and B such that A+B=A. And, in non-communinative algebras A*B will not necessarily equal B*A. It turns out the the algebras have real physical applications.

    General relativity is based on non-Euclidian geometry, which has different assumptions from those found in ordinary high school geometry.

    Likewise, another major deviation from ordinary high school mathematics, which is complex analysis (i.e. calculus involving the possibility that numbers can have imaginary components, a.k.a. complex numbers) also has physical usefulness.

    Another common field of exploration in modern physics theory, at least, is the possibility that space and time are not continuous, which is an assumption of all mathematics conducted on the set of real numbers or the set of complex numbers (or subsets of them) as mathematics generally is now.

    In short, mathematics has shown no inability to measure up to new possibilities in fundamental and structural ways to address new problems in physics. This isn't to say that whole new classes of mathematical structures might be developed some day. A fairly recent example is the resurrection of the notion of a non-integer dimension, used in fractal and chaos mathematics, which had lied dormant for many decades before being rediscovered in the 1980s. Other new ideas could arise.

    But, I strongly doubt that any roadblock is beyond mathematical expression entirely, and while our ability to calculate the results implied by our theories at time actually falls behind our ability to do experiments (for example in parts of QCD), I don't think that we are at such a roadblock now.
     
  15. May 18, 2005 #14

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Good post, ohwilleke.
    Personally, since I think we might replace every instance of the word "maths" with the phrase "good and productive thinking", I have rather negative view on phrases like "limits on math"..:wink:
     
  16. May 19, 2005 #15
    ohwilleke thank you for an intelligent and unemotional response, same to the others on this list. For those of us who have limited maths and a real curiosity but are still capble of "good and productive thinking" (thanks for that line arildno) without it. As a poet I'm aware of a variety of ways of thinking/feeling that seem in my limited knowledge not easy to fit into math and yet are still important and productive for insight. I look at some of the theories as mentioned about the hawking radiation and other things, like the big bang, string theory and the brane with multiverses and wonder about them when there seem to be simpler solutions possible like an eternal universe. Now I have heard about the acceleration of the universe and people madly looking for some explanation but some this stuff seem as sloppy as New Age thinking
     
  17. May 19, 2005 #16

    z0r

    User Avatar

    Mathematics as an expression of a culture/civilization

    I found this post interesting because at the moment I am reading Spengler's Decline of the West. I have just finished the introduction and started the second chapter: Meaning of Numbers.

    Spengler argues that the idea of a universality of mathematics is nonsense; that number is one thing, but the methods developed in mathematics are not developed unless they are expressions of "the soul of a culture," so to speak.

    He compares the Romans and Greeks, which he refers to as the Classical culture, to European culture, which he refers to as Western culture. He claims the men of the Classical culture had expressed their mathematical ideas long before Pythagoras in their architecture, which was rigid and of substance. The mathematics of the Classical civilization, he argues, was one of solid substance. The mathematics of the West is one of space.

    Spengler mentions Euclid's definition of a line as "length without breadth." Spengler claims this is a "pitiful" definition to Western civilization, but fit perfectly well into the Classical worldview.

    I have found The Decline of the West to be a fascinating critique of many things I had once considered "obvious" or taken for granted. My initial impression is one of majestic awe... this is indeed a work not to be taken lightly.

    Has anyone else read/heard of it?
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2005
  18. May 19, 2005 #17

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The major work of a Nazi crackpot like Spengler?
    Sure I've heard about it..
     
  19. May 19, 2005 #18

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Spengler was neither a Nazi nor a crackpot. He published the first edition of his study of history, The Decline of the West before WWI, when Hitler was still trying to become a painter, and his conclusions in it contradict the Thousand Year Reich, as you can see from the title.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2005
  20. May 19, 2005 #19

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    1)Sure he was a crackpot; "organic" theories of societal evolution like Spengler's, Toynbee's and Hegel's (and, for that, matter, Marx) have been thouroughly debunked; history doesn't allow for such over-simplified schemes of explanation.

    2) He certainly was a racist and anti-democrat, although he disdained the "vulgar" appeal of the full-blown Nazis.
    He was, however, not entirely unsympathetic to them.
     
  21. May 19, 2005 #20
    You cannot understand a physical theory in a meaningful fashion if you do not understand the mathematics. The job of a theoretical physicist is to quantify physical phenomena.

    And discussing or speculating about a theory of which you have a superficial understanding just typically leads to nonsense, as you would naturally expect.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Limits of maths
  1. The speed limit (Replies: 112)

  2. Limitations of Physics? (Replies: 103)

  3. The Limits of Knowledge (Replies: 100)

  4. Limits of AI (Replies: 80)

  5. Limitations of willpower (Replies: 17)

Loading...