Printable View
2012 shapes up to be a good year for science. First the Higgs-Boson was found, now we have a solution to the abc-conjucture.
Do I understand any of it? Heck no! I do recognize some of its implications though, like giving solutions to certain Diophantic problems. Exciting nonetheless! I'm having a meeting with my old maths professor in October, I'll try to harass him for some answers... In the meantime, does anyone here understand some of it?
Not 'science' as such but number theory. Nor is the Higgs - Boson 'found'. It is probable.
Am I stupid because I really don't understand that or just stupid
This is the absolute top of mathematics Frags, I don't understand a word of it. Well, I can recognize the symbols and such, but I'm completely clueless as to what he's saying. Kinda like reading dutch: I understand the letters and can spot one or two words, but I have no chance to udnderstand what it means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I read an article about it which was enlightening, but it was in Norwegian. I may be able to find one in english...
Very much science, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood
Anyway if the proof stacks up this would indeed signal party time.
I thought this would be about the new monkey they found, the one who looks like Gene Wilder. I love Willy Wonka
Here is a gentle introduction to the subject:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
http://www.ega-math.narod.ru/Liv/Goldfeld.htm
Also other major scientific news:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1884818.html
IBM was able to photograph bounds within a molecule, continuing and improving on their older pictures of molecules.
If this had been discovered by CERN, I'm sure a number of clueless politicians would've called for an end to such "useless research". It's a lot harder to call the research a waste of money when it's done by a commercial company though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
Well, in all fairness, commercial companies aren't funded with taxpayer's money for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
That's completely besides the point. I think you may have to reread my post...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The point is that this kind of research generates profit. If it didn't, IBM wouldn't be doing it. In other words, not funding this kind of research is a waste of tax payer money, while funding it generates more money.
Where does the money come from? The same people. Who aren't always happy with what they get for their money either. Do you really think goverments are the only organisations that rip us from our money? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Mathematics isn't science.
It's like confusing weights with weight lifting.
There was the discovery of a new species of human a while back.
It looks like even old text books can be wrong.
Mathematics is the only Science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
OK, so what I want to know is did this chap do it properly using chalk and tables, or did he cheat and use a computer?
I guess it depends on what you'd call science. Just out of interest what do and don't you consider science and why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Science deals with the study of nature, the world around us. Mathematics also includes the imaginary.
You also can do maths as an arts degree...
But much to the chagrin of mathematicians, scientists seems to always find a "real world" use for it:p The search for a theorem that is not in any way useful continues...Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Nature article on the original topic:
http://www.nature.com/news/proof-cla...primes-1.11378
Link to Mochizuki's blog:
http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~mot...s-english.html
Got to agree here, from what I read it just means the tools we use are off, if you can prove you can make two cubes out of one mathemetically there is something wrong with math itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
No - just no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Science is a method, not a discipline.
Mathematics conforms to the method, therefore it is a Science.
That would be natural science, ie. biology, physics and chemistry, not science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I feel utterly vindicated.
This is false. Mathematics most definitely does not operate on Scientific Method. Mathematics lacks the necessary empirical component.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I don't think you understand what "science" or "empirical" mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I don't think you understand what "science" or "empirical" mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Let's start with the easy one, shall we? Empirical: can be observed, or shown by way of experiment.
The fact that prime numbers cannot be factorised into smaller primes (which follows from the definition of prime) can be lend credibility using empirical evidence of taking a prime number, say, 13 and trying to find an integer factor larger than 1 and smaller than this number (13). It turns out this is impossible which yields an empirical data point backing this statement.
You are now invited to dispel the notion of empirical evidence backing the work of Mathematicians, ignoring the body of history in which Mathematics was founded on observed (empirical) curiosities. Please, it'll be fun.
as a dual math major im very excited by this news it is a big deal. my professors are all likely to be in highly aroused states for the remainder of the year.
This is what happens when you atomise the Academy and muck around with the definitions of words like "science".Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I'm sympathetic to HoreTore's irritation, but even so it's nice not to be the one on the receiving end of this.
Theoretical Physics is a Science - or at least it was last time I checked, that's just a branch of Mathematics.
It's not empirical data. It cannot be physically measured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
So all I have to do is introduce "measurable" units that your mind feels more comfortable with? Thereby giving you a direct physical example of Math at work? Alright, the cm will do nicely: substitute 1cm for 1, therefore 13cm for 13. Using this convention, factorising 8 into its prime factors is simply a matter of taking a length of 8cm and dividing it into parts each of 2cm. So tell me now how can you not physically demonstrate that 13cm cannot possibly be split into smaller, equal parts which are a whole (integer) multiple of the cm and larger than 1cm? How is that not empirical?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
You must have been asleep when people tried to explain units of measurement to you.