[LeoK]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao The biggest prime question: Is infinity a prime number?

Did you leave this issue?

There was a 19th century mathematician named Goedel
that almost answered this problem.

He did postulate something like this:
If you add infinite amounts you get the infinite.

Or something similar.

LeoK

[LeoK]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Who are the intuitionists? The logicists and the formalists? Are there anyone here belonging to any of this groups? Once you identify as a member of one the groups, this post is requesting enlightenment from whoever you are concerning your philosophical stand why math is useful to the progress of science and the humanities.

Do you ask: Are you intuitive or logical?
Or do you ask: Why is math useful in science?
OK, you ask both.

You presume one being a intuitive mathematician.
Or.
One being a logical mathematician.

Believing mathematics is the "tool" that later is used in any scientific
or human action. After the philosophers or researchers have proved
the actual use for the specific math.

As you can see in my post here I see mathematicians to be
the craftsman for the math "tool".

For example, Einstein was more a philosopher and a physicists than
a pure mathematician. But he had to convert "it" to math.

LeoK

[LeoK]

Originally Posted by LeoK As you can see in my post here I see mathematicians to be the craftsman for the math "tool".

Believing that most math today needs a trained or educated
mathematician (craftsman) to "interpret" and work with the
math "tool" in any specific or general task.

No man (or woman) can today be both the researcher, scientist or
at least a plain philosopher when the math today has tendencies to
acquire a specialist.

To put it plain:

The pure mathematician is not a pure philosopher is my personal
belief concerning scientific evolution.

And this is a rather common opinion, and I'm aware about this.

The problem here is that the mathematician does not research
by nature but more calculate already researched material.

LeoK

[hanzoganz]

Originally Posted by LeoK Believing that most math today needs a trained or educated mathematician (craftsman) to "interpret" and work with the math "tool" in any specific or general task. No man (or woman) can today be both the researcher, scientist or at least a plain philosopher when the math today has tendencies to acquire a specialist. To put it plain: The pure mathematician is not a pure philosopher is my personal belief concerning scientific evolution. And this is a rather common opinion, and I'm aware about this. The problem here is that the mathematician does not research by nature but more calculate already researched material. LeoK

First, for infinity calculations, go to Turing not Gödel.
Yes, knowledge is built on what is already known but wandering about the unknown. It is difficult to explain. We, mathematicians, spend a long time trying to dicepher it out. But after a while, it is quite rewarding.

Not a philosopher? doubt it. Not by nature? I doubt it.
Nowadays, math is trying to solve all those weid equations found by physichist a few years ago. And trying to solve models which biologist seem not to understand theoretically.

[LeoK]

Originally Posted by hanzoganz First, for infinity calculations, go to Turing not Gödel. Yes, knowledge is built on what is already known but wandering about the unknown. It is difficult to explain. We, mathematicians, spend a long time trying to dicepher it out. But after a while, it is quite rewarding. Not a philosopher? doubt it. Not by nature? I doubt it. Nowadays, math is trying to solve all those weid equations found by physichist a few years ago. And trying to solve models which biologist seem not to understand theoretically.

Hi, hanzoganz

I can only make an example that to my opinion is a rather good view of
that the "pure" mathematician is not such a good "pure" philosopher.

Take the TOE main issue for decades... the unification of the Newton
physics and the Maxwell/Einstein/Bohr physics.

Or the unification of gravity according to Newton and electromagnetism/
quantum mechanics.

Mathematicians have tried for now about a century, with the math, to
merge these two physical fundamentals - but still has utterly failed.

One can say that the math for the classical physics (Newtonian) is a
adequate (sufficient) math. (Proved in our lunar expeditions for instance.)
And that the math for GR, SR and QM among
others, are also adequate. There is not so much wrong with these, also
empirical proved almost infinite times, maths either.

But the mathematicians can not unify it into a GUT or a TOE.
I belive it needs a philosopher to unify these two fundamentals.

This is my personal belief, also based upon the math failure described
here in this post.

You can also take this post as some kind of proof upon my belief.

Sincerely
LeoK

[LeoK]

Self not being a mathematician I have some problems to answer the
mathematician's ability to figure theories for example concerning TOE.

I have polarized between a "pure" mathematician and a "pure"
philosopher but have almost forgotten the physicist that should
be the natural discoverer of TOE, if ever anyone will.

Perhaps the "pure" physicist is the natural TOE solver!!!

For to be a bit more theorizing about why it perhaps should be so
one can imagine that the math for the two parts, gravity and
electromagnetism, is too apart for the moment to be
mathematically merged into a TOE for example.

We perhaps need a new Newton or a new Einstein that probably
were "pure" physicists. Someone with these persons abilities will
perhaps merge the maths. Not by just merging it, but by the "pure"
physicist's intuition about the nature itself.

LeoK

[hanzoganz]

Pure purity is pure nonsense. Newton made new mathematics; Einstein made use of all the maths from his time (Minkowski,...) and a bit of phillosophy (Mach).
You need to understand what is already known to try to discover something new.

[LeoK]

Originally Posted by hanzoganz Pure purity is pure nonsense. Newton made new mathematics; Einstein made use of all the maths from his time (Minkowski,...) and a bit of phillosophy (Mach). You need to understand what is already known to try to discover something new.

Perhaps, perhaps not about "Pure" disciplines.
Depends on knowledge, here I definitively agree.

But what I have noticed about Einstein I really belive he was a
physicist most of all. And what I have read about Newton I want to
place him in the same category.

And the discipline we argue about is really physics so why not a physicist?

Keep the scientific spirit alive, whatever it may be...
LeoK

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by baudrunner Fusion is the process in hydrogen bombs and suns.

Is there such a thing as miniaturized fusions of the inner recesses of mind? This is the origin of ideas and the beginning of creation of energy, matter, and space-time.

[harmonygirl]

Interesting idea, Antonio, something from nothing at a subatomic level?