Invisible wrote:
> Personally, I would make the separation that "Euclidean geometry" is a 
> mathematical theory, while "the real world conforms to Euclidean 
> geometry" is a scientific theory.

Exactly this. There are all kinds of geometries that are *not* useful 
outside mathematics, *because* they don't conform closely enough to the real 
world.

Which is more scientific: Newton's equations, or Einstein's equations?

It's just that mathematical theories that can't be related to something 
useful predicting how the world works get talked about only in very abstruse 
and rare situations. Hence, all the "math" that most people know is math 
that's somehow equatable to some subset of reality, making it seem like math 
is about reality.

Generate random text strings until one compiles. What good is that program? 
It almost certainly doesn't do anything useful. But it's just as valid a 
program as one you've carefully crafted from a detailed specification.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message