itaibn0 comments on Ask an experimental physicist - Less Wrong

35 Post author: RolfAndreassen 08 June 2012 11:43PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (294)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: itaibn0 10 June 2012 07:45:21PM *  1 point [-]

You and amy1987 responding seem to think that math is the same thing as formulas. While there is a lot that can be done without formulas, physics is impossible without math. For instance, to understand spin one needs to understand representation theory. amy1987 mentioned QED. Well, QED certainly does have math. It presents complex numbers and path integrals and the stationary phase approximation. Math is just thinking that is absolutely and completely precise.

ADDED: I forgot to take the statements I reference in their context: responding to James_Miller. He clearly used 'math' to mean what appears in math textbooks. This makes my criticism invalid. I'm sorry.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 June 2012 08:12:16PM 0 points [-]

From the context, I guess that was not what James_Miller meant.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 10 June 2012 08:11:17PM 0 points [-]

You make several contradictory claims and I disagree with all of them.

Comment author: itaibn0 10 June 2012 08:56:07PM 1 point [-]

Explain.