# What is you favor law of nature,

1. Feb 18, 2007

### kant

Principles, math theorm.

2. Feb 18, 2007

### hypatia

It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

3. Feb 18, 2007

### Schrodinger's Dog

Aren't maths theorems just approximations of the laws of nature,even constants like the fine structure constant are not 100% accurate.

I'd say the best law of nature is evolution followed by gravity perhaps.

Last edited: Feb 18, 2007
4. Feb 18, 2007

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Maths does not concern itself with the laws of nature. That is the job of physics.

What exactly do you mean by this? It is a measurement or a description that possesses the property of accuracy. The value of the constant, just like the value of any other measured quantity (that isn't quantized) as determined by measurement, naturally can not be had to an arbitrary accuracy (heck, is it even possible to write down an arbitrary real number in a finite time?).

5. Feb 18, 2007

### Schrodinger's Dog

Erm ok, do you not think that was a little bit of a nit pick? I think it's clear what he's referring too, and what I am, I was pointing out that maths is not an exact reflection of the laws of nature, on it's own. In other words?

Exactly what you just said, so why has he said maths theorems? And by maths theorems I presume he's talking about mathematical terms that apply to theory, or nature, thus the ?

I kind of get the feeling that we are both saying the same thing pretty much.

When I think of a law of nature I don't think of

$$F_g=G.\frac{m1m2}{r^2}$$

I tend to think of gravity and the discussion of gravity's effects as the law and the maths as the closest representation possible of these effects given condtion x.

Last edited: Feb 18, 2007
6. Feb 18, 2007

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
I didn't read the question that way. I read it as "what are your favorite laws of nature, principles, and math theorems?" But I still don't understand what you mean by :
That is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say; that it does not attempt to be one. I guess it's just not as clear to me as it is to you.

Last edited: Feb 18, 2007
7. Feb 18, 2007

### Schrodinger's Dog

I see what you mean? Very odd way of writing the question, I've not seen someone do that before, never mind. Obviously my mistake.

Well considering I misinterpreted the question, I didn't think that was made clear? Anyway doesn't matter.

Last edited: Feb 18, 2007
8. Feb 18, 2007

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
I've seen lots of people split up a sentence between the thread title and the first part of the OP. Can be quite confusing.

9. Feb 18, 2007

### gravenewworld

a^2+b^2=c^2

10. Feb 18, 2007

### Chi Meson

I think we just saw the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at work in the first 8 posts!

Go 2nd Law!