I might have misunderstood something...I thought you meant in your first post that maths was now being made useless due to the fact that it no longer works in the physical world, as it is bound to the physical reality.

What I was trying to point out, it is perhaps not entirely a tool for the physical reality, but can be considered a science of its own, without having the necessity to apply it as a physical quantity...Hence might not be outdated yet.

theres a dollar in my pocket

**50** XP

**9th November 2006**

**0** Uploads

**863** Posts

**0** Threads

math is not science's lapdog math is a type of science....it is an EXACT science there's not 500 different answers for 1 problem unless the problem calls for it.

where as science has all these other things to consider, that's why math is nice, 2+2 will always =4 no ifs no ands or buts about it. math says if you have 7 dogs - 3 dogs = 4 dogs yes but science would be more like if you had 7 dogs and mixed them together what would you get?

with =maths you're either right or wrong there is no maybes.

SVD_Sniper;3473987Firstly I wouldnt be all high and mighty about your ability with maths over mine. I have already done 2 years of a MSci in maths and physics at Cambridge uni. You have no idea how competent or incompetent I may or may not be. What I am trying to say is that yes maths is extremley useful (Esp. calculus). I spend about 6 hours a day at work programming mathematical functions. What I am trying to say is that its physics that defines these "rmathematical ratios". E.g Why is pi 3.1415? To a mathematician its actual value doenst really matter (if it were 3, say, then sure sin would have a different period etc...but the relationships still hold true). To find out why and to explain it you must turn to science.

Oh and "nothing is random". I agree with you. So does (did) Einstein - "God doesnt paly with dice etc..". However there are things that appear to be ransomd (not apparent ranodmomness/psuedorandom) like nuclear decay. Where do you stand on that? I think its just that we dont know enough about the system so it appears random.

Oh lol! Sorry about that, but if you look at who i was quoting, i was responding to Delta Force. Anyways, in response to you SVD in particular; Well, randomness is a very touchy and highly debatable topic that will be the topic for debate for a verrryyyy long time. For example, nuclear decay; it may appear that it follows no pattern at all, correct? However, not having an apparent relationship, is in itself a pattern. One might argue, "What about dice rolling, *that* must be random" Where in fact, it is not random at all. If you realize what's involved, shaking the dice in your hand, it's all physics; angle and speed the dice bounces off your hand; and a thousand other things. I don't want this to become a random number debate, so, moving on.

The 1/0 thing. Let's graph the function f(x) = 1/(x - 2)

What you're saying that when x = 2 f(x) = infinity

If you do the limits of this problem

lim 1/(x-2) = ? x -> 2

Look to the right of the limit

lim 1/(x-2) = + infinity x -> 2+

and to the left

lim 1/(x-2) = - infinity x -> 2-

So the function will go to (-/+)infinity on the left and right of the *discontinuity*. To put it simply, 1/0 just doesn't exist the same as sqrt( -1) doesn't exist, no way can you square a number and get a negative. There's no simple way to put it other than, it just doesn't exist.
:naughty:

In regard to the 1/0 thing: No I realise that but we define it to be infinity the same way we define i. i doenst "really" (no pun intended:P) exist, but it is a useful thing to have defined as a means to an end.

And in response to the 2+2 = 4 guy: Ok thats fine it will do. however if i define something to be the way I want it to be then it always will be. [unclear?] for example if I define "dog " to mean what you think of as a "sandwhich" in my mind I will always be correct. The thing with physcis is that it doesnt "self-define" , it takes its definitions from the physical (as opposed to any other hahaha!) world.

Delta Force;3472902I think all math beyond algebra is useless, but that is just me. I am in Algebra 2 and I am thinking "When the hell are we ever going to use the quadratic forumula? How about factoring equations? How about even in some crazy hypotheical situation?"

Math is just useless beyond algebra 1.

all i gotta say it... damn straight! :lookaround:

now u all kinda lost me with ur fancy talking and all (i'm 13 gimme a break), but, getting back to the very first question/statement by SVD_sniper, mathematics dosent have to be a physical form, it can be used to create or describe a physical form, plus one of the very core theorys behind quantum physics is that nothing is real (nothing has a solid form or what defines reality) so therefore maths could not be used in context with a "solid" object. i really didnt put a whole lot of full stops in there ey. and as someone up there said, everything is maths so i believe that without maths science wouldnt work very well and without science maths wouldnt matter.

one thing disturbs me about maths: they say a point has no dimensions, ok. they say a line has infinite amount of points... (------ something like this) but then a line with an end, has no infinite amount of points. but, if a point has no dimensions, wouldnt that mean that even a line with an end ( |-----| something like this) has infinite amount of points/dots, whatever you call them in your language... i am probably appearing very stupid right now, but its a thing i just cant work out...

- 1
- 2