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

Perfect Math?

  1. Oct 27, 2004 #1
    Just Wondering: Is the existance perfectly undergo's mathmatical laws in its existance, even it might be behind our abilities yet to "Discover"?
    To make it with examples associated: Existance cannot be infinitley old, since ifnity is not "Existed" in math? Or we can assume "Mathematical references" While dealing with such an issues?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 27, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I cannot even understand what you're trying to say.

    - Warren
  4. Oct 27, 2004 #3
    Well, this might explain the views with out the replies...
    To re-say in another way:
    A scientific Formula undego mathmatical laws i.e. no single scientif formual has a realtion among its variables which it is unmathmatical, or at least in the "mathematical system" that we humans used.

    So: Can we by assumnig this saying that "All" scientific laws in existance should completly in mathmatical orders.

    E.g:A vast amount of arguments in philosophy abuot "Universe us ifnitely old" is widely discussed. while i found it odd to talk about it if in mathmatics infinity is not a number and does not exist....or is the idea of "infinity" and other numeric relation in math could be exist but out of the math system we use.

    I hope my question is clear now.
  5. Oct 27, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think you're trying to ask:

    Can all scientific theories be described by mathematics?

    The answer is no. Many theories are only qualitative. Take natural selection, for example. You can certainly write some equations that describe the behavior of a population of animals in the presence of some environmental pressure, but you cannot write a mathematical formalism that describes how natural selection actually occurs.

    Mathematics is just a tool; science is an edifice. Many different tools may be needed to complete that edifice.

    By the way, "infinity" (the concept) certainly exists, because it has well defined properties. Although there are no infinite quantities in the physical world, that does not mean that infinity, the concept, does not exist.

    It is absolutely true that there are true statements which currently exist outside our mathematical system. Mathematics, however, is not done -- it is evolving.

    - Warren
  6. Oct 27, 2004 #5
    I agree with you in this fact, as well as such "historical laws" or "social laws" [if the considered as "laws" by definition] are not governed by mathematics as the natural selection example that oyu mentioned.

    Back to first track: Can we, from mathematical perspective, proof that always in any existance 1+1=3 [1 wieghts one, 3 wieghts 3]?. There is some concepts such as "circle" that we can predict that it is exist even it is not faced in reality. While "infinity" is a concept exist in math but does not exist in reality [or at least i think so]

    Can some physics law, for instantce, "out of mathematical system" at the universe beginning, then now it "undergoes" the math tool we use?
    [Well, i need it from math perspective, thus why we are in math thread, not physics one!]
  7. Oct 27, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You've lost me again.

    - Warren
  8. Oct 27, 2004 #7
    Well, sorry abuot that :smile:

    In other words: Is the match of what exist in reality and formuals concerns with it "Fit mathematically" all the time, i.e its perfectly connected.

    For example: in numbers theory, we can never reach "infinity", this is in math, but can we confidently say that the universe is not "infinetly old" since its starting point should be a point with "finite" distace from "now" on the numbers line. Is anything correct impossible mathematically is by necessaty impossible in reality?

    Cheerz for help :biggrin:

    -The Holy-Landian
  9. Oct 27, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    What axioms you choose to define your maths by, determines what can be said to "exist" in that particular mathematics.

    Whether there exist correlates in "reality" to those axioms, is a completely separate issue.

    I think this thread should be moved into "Philosophy"
  10. Oct 27, 2004 #9
    Well, firstly i did not get the meaning of an "axioms"

    The questions might sounds philosophical, ubt from my perspective it is in the bottom of math basics flaws. I mean the math we use commonly now in science [let me be modest, i do not know how to not define it...]

    A sub-question that just pop up on my skull now:
    we know that some mathematics tactics to solve some problems are piontless while extremtly effective in others, in terms of some solution tactics, some math questions are "unsolved" while they easy flowing sloved by other tactics.

    Could this be such as well about some mathematical concepts such as infinity: we say "it does not exist" as real, but we can figure that it could exist in other mathematical ways that me, as a person, did not know. [Till know.

    I think it a math issue, even i admit that the first emitter for this question was a heated-up philosophical discussion i had...
  11. Oct 27, 2004 #10
    I don't agree; a Platonist would say yes, except the formulas just haven't been discovered yet (& I mean discovered as opposed to created/invented). Kepler said that the laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics. A scientist would say that math is merely a tool, but a pure mathematician might think it's the opposite. Depending on who you are, math can be the Queen or the handmaiden of the sciences.
  12. Dec 14, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    In fact, there is NO mathematical theory which perfectly fits a physical theory.
    Every mathematical theory contains "undefined terms" which you can think of as "place holders" with axioms describing the postulated relations between undefined terms. We match mathematical theories to physical theories (or applications in general- doesn't have to be physics) by assigning specific meaning to the undefined terms. Since all relations between actual (physical) quantities have to be measured and measurement is not perfect, any mathematical model is a better or worse approximation to reality.
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2004
  13. Jan 13, 2005 #12
    Is this the whole thing Einstein was so mad about? That there was no mathematical order to the universe?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Perfect Math?
  1. Perfection? (Replies: 11)

  2. What is perfection? (Replies: 5)

  3. Perfect economy (Replies: 41)

  4. Perfect arragngement (Replies: 3)