Another major scientific breakthrough!

[Tellos Athenaios]

It's not empirical data. It cannot be physically measured.

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?

You must have been asleep when people tried to explain units of measurement to you.

[rvg]

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?

How is it empirical? Does a number exist in a physical world?

[Tellos Athenaios]

How is it empirical? Does a number exist in a physical world?

A number is a quantity, nothing more.

[Fragony]

A number is a quantity, nothing more.

A quantity is a quantity, seems like numbers just don't cut it

[Tellos Athenaios]

A quantity is a quantity, seems like numbers just don't cut it

How?

[Fragony]

How?

From your link, a cube can apparentlty by devided into two cubes, that is not possible yet can be proven mathematically

[Tellos Athenaios]

From your link, a cube can apparentlty by devided into two cubes, that is not possible yet can be proven mathematically

A cube cannot be partitioned in this way, that is exactly what Fermat's Last Theorem states (when considering cubes n = 3, therefore n > 2) and it is mathematically proven to be impossible. I think you misread?

[rvg]

A number is a quantity, nothing more.

Where in nature can I find 731?

[Montmorency]

I see it on my screen right here.

[rvg]

I see it on my screen right here.

Can you weigh it?

[Montmorency]

Some multiple of 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms, presumably.

[Populus Romanus]

Can you weigh it?

Weight is irrelevant. The photon, for instance, has no mass at all. Still exists.

[HoreTore]

Where in nature can I find 731?

This is a fundamental misconception of what mathemathics is. An extremely common one, but still fundamentally wrong.

Mathematics is not abstract. Not in any way whatsoever. One can use abstract thinking to solve problems, like in every other scientific field, but the basis of mathematics will always be the natural world. Numbers exist because they are the names we have given to sizes we find in the world.

731 is easily found, just buy 731 apples, put them on the table before you and voila.

[rvg]

This is a fundamental misconception of what mathemathics is. An extremely common one, but still fundamentally wrong.

Mathematics is not abstract. Not in any way whatsoever. One can use abstract thinking to solve problems, like in every other scientific field, but the basis of mathematics will always be the natural world. Numbers exist because they are the names we have given to sizes we find in the world.

731 is easily found, just buy 731 apples, put them on the table before you and voila.

No, no. I'm not looking for 731 apples, or 731 electrons or 731 widgets.
I'm looking for 731.

[HoreTore]

No, no. I'm not looking for 731 apples, or 731 electrons or 731 widgets.
I'm looking for 731.

Then you are looking for something different than what mathematicians look for.

It's like saying astronomy is unscientific because you can't see any stars in your waste basket.