network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 6 months |
| seen | Nov 15 '12 at 14:38 | |
| stats | profile views | 10 |
|
Nov 15 |
comment |
The Role of Rigor Well written answer! |
|
Nov 15 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Nov 15 |
accepted | Is physics rigorous in the mathematical sense? |
|
Nov 14 |
comment |
Is physics rigorous in the mathematical sense? I do feel that most of the axioms in mathematics are so intuitive and self-evident like 1+1=2, etc etc, except for the axiom of mathematical induction, and euclid's 5th axiom. Then again, I am just beginning my undergraduate studies, so I haven't seen much of what there is to see. Are there similar, self-avident axioms in Physics too? |
|
Nov 14 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Nov 14 |
comment |
Is physics rigorous in the mathematical sense? I see, that is a very helpful answer Stan! I will check out the lecture. However, is there absolutely no way, in no area of Physics, can we apply the idea of Axiom-Definition-Speculation-Theorem-Proof structure of mathematics? |
|
Nov 14 |
awarded | Editor |
|
Nov 14 |
comment |
Is physics rigorous in the mathematical sense? If we are going to build Physics from ground-up, then there should be a set of axioms that we should lay by, isn't it? Or else, we could be building Physics on unstable structures. There is a famous saying, whom I forgotten the author, by which he says that, the idea of a proof is to prove beyond doubt, your own argument. |
|
Nov 14 |
revised |
Is physics rigorous in the mathematical sense? edited body |
|
Nov 14 |
comment |
Is physics rigorous in the mathematical sense? It is not inherently rigorous.. That is, you may try an experiment and get the same result that verifies your equation for 1 million times, but who knows, chances are still that the 1 millionth 1 time could prove you wrong. Can we prove beyond doubt, equations in physics? |
|
Nov 14 |
awarded | Student |
|
Nov 14 |
asked | Is physics rigorous in the mathematical sense? |
