224 reputation
15
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 9 months
seen Jul 26 at 12:22

Jul
4
comment Would a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Problem have any practical consequences?
So what is the reason for considering P!=NP to be "scientifically certain"?
Jul
3
comment Would a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Problem have any practical consequences?
So then you're saying it's probably true, not "100% surely true". But that's the same case as with many of these other unresolved conjectures, isn't it? They're probably one of true/false, but may be the other.
Jul
3
comment Can the math for physics be expressed without any uncountable sets at all?
@CuriousOne: However, could one argue that it is actually the uncountablist maths which makes the extra assumptions -- in particular, that there exist these indescribables of various types (uncomputable reals, Banach Tarsky-type sets, etc.)?
Jul
3
comment Can the math for physics be expressed without any uncountable sets at all?
If all that disappears is stuff on an "infinite precision" level, then there is no reason we could not use C-I maths instead of uncountablist.
Jul
3
comment Can the math for physics be expressed without any uncountable sets at all?
Right. So then it would seem not to defeat the usefulness of a physics theory built on Computable-Intuitionistic mathematics. Because we cannot measure down to the level that would be required to distinguish between the two types of mathematics. What I want to know is exactly what predictive power disappears when you use Computable-Intuitionist maths to do your classical mechanics, versus using uncountablist maths? Because that was the contention of this answer's OP.
Jul
3
comment Can the math for physics be expressed without any uncountable sets at all?
Right. So then I'd say show me an example of a testable prediction (the only kind that matters in science) that can be made by, say, "classical" classical mechanics and NOT by Computable-Intuitionistic classical mechanics. Something involving things along the lines of creating objects like Banach-Tarski-like sets doesn't count because that is not testable since we cannot make anything like that.
Jul
3
comment Can the math for physics be expressed without any uncountable sets at all?
What sort of prediction cannot be made from a constructively-formulated physics theory that CAN be made from one formulated in nonconstructive mathematics AND is wholly physical?
Jul
3
asked Can the math for physics be expressed without any uncountable sets at all?
Jul
3
comment Would a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Problem have any practical consequences?
Why is it impossible that $P \ne NP$ could have a negative answer? If we could show that, then we have shown $P \ne NP$! Also, there is no such thing as "100% sure" in science, unlike in mathematics.
Mar
24
comment What is the physical significance of dot & cross product of vectors? Why is division not defined for vectors?
Wouldn't tensors be too advanced for a basic college-level physics, though? There's a reason that "garbage" is put in those basic textbooks.
Mar
15
awarded  Editor
Feb
21
comment A change in the gravitational law
The weak gravity is probably the killer. That would mean the Universe would be nothing but an expanding cloud of gas. So no 4D people to play Rubik's Tesseracts :(
Feb
13
awarded  Yearling
Feb
13
comment How does “warp drive” not violate Special Relativity causality constraints?
How do they find that 817 years go by on Earth, if from Earth's point of view they were going FTL, and thus their trip would take less than 8.6 years? If they took 817 years from Earth's point of view, that would mean that from Earth's point of view they were traveling far SLOWER than C.
Feb
13
asked Is it, and if so, why, impossible to build perpetual motion machines (PMMs) in GR?
Jan
1
comment Does the Earth rotate vertically too?
Yeah, I did not see that bit. Sorry.
Jan
1
comment Does the Earth rotate vertically too?
And the Earth turning head-over-heels would not actually produce these effects: the orientation of the magnetic field with respect to the planetary surface would remain unchanged.
Dec
6
comment What does high-pressure ice look like?
Thanks. Wasn't using the right search terms, apparently. Feel free to close this one down if you want.
Dec
6
awarded  Student
Dec
6
asked What does high-pressure ice look like?