Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
reply
Line 238: Line 238:     
::: Invariably math/physics types initially insist that it must be precisely 2 in order to make the integrals work nicely.  But physical observation is what counts, and there is no logical obstacle to mathematical inelegance.  Thanks for discussing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
 
::: Invariably math/physics types initially insist that it must be precisely 2 in order to make the integrals work nicely.  But physical observation is what counts, and there is no logical obstacle to mathematical inelegance.  Thanks for discussing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::: Mark and Jacob, I encourage you to ponder this question (#12) further.  I do think that an insistence on mathematical elegance as dictating physical phenomenon cannot withstand scrutiny.
 +
 +
:::: God and logic define nature, not mathematical elegance.  We have to observe first, and then come up with the best math to describe the observations.  There is no logical problem to 2.0000001 here.  Indeed, I find it implausible to expect that exponent to be precisely 2 for our calculating convenience.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 2 October 2009 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,215

edits

Navigation menu