28 Aug 18
Originally posted by @sonhousegeez, electrons find the path of least resistance. Hell all they had to do was look at river flowing down a mountain to figure that one out.
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-decades-old-math-problem.html
Another one bites the dust, with many implications for such things as quantum computers.
29 Aug 18
7 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedI think its very unlikely any scientist here would tend to confuse the difference given the difference usually being pretty obvious to the well educated.
Mathematical physics cannot ever be applied without making at least one assumption, often a highly implicit one, about the physical world that is neither a pure mathematical axiom itself nor can be mathematically derived purely and only from some formal pure mathematical axioms without at least one other additional assumption that isn't itself a pure mathematical axiom. In other words, it needs to make at least one assumption that is NOT a maths one. That alone shows it certainly cannot be pure maths.
The post that was quoted here has been removedWell thank you for the hidden insult, not so hidden. I think maybe you know my own son in law is a statistical physicist, where math is used in the real world for real world problems.
We talked about such things already, so you might be surprised a dullard like me could actually know the difference between the math of physics and pure math.
And I did point out the real world possibility of this work in quantum computers.
But hey, I am a jingoistic lying morally reprehensible fatuous troll so anything I say can be instantly ignored.
Duchess
I think you underestimate some people's intelligence here.
A non-scientist not knowing much algebra certainly doesn't imply he/she cannot understand the difference between pure and applied maths (to physics in this case). A person without contradiction can be totally crap at both but still know the difference. I am now moderately good at algebra but, before I learned much about it and about the various sciences, even then I knew the difference between pure and applied maths because of my interest in pretty basic philosophy. I am pretty sure even my mother knows the difference and, due to circumstances beyond her control, she had the terrible misfortune of not having any formal education whatsoever (long story).
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
The post that was quoted here has been removedOh... the mathematical fraud arrives just in the nick of time to "explain" something painfully obvious before "we" simpleton engineers and scientists muck it all up! Thank you again and again for continually providing your worthless input that is designed for the sole purpose of selling your un-clever deception of mathematical brilliance...Bravo...Bravo! What a performance! You sure have me fooled!
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
29 Aug 18
Originally posted by @humyIndeed.
Duchess
I think you underestimate some people's intelligence here.
A non-scientist not knowing much algebra certainly doesn't imply he/she cannot understand the difference between pure and applied maths (to physics in this case). A person without contradiction can be totally crap at both but still know the difference. I am now moderately good at algebra bu ...[text shortened]... rol, she had the terrible misfortune of not having any formal education whatsoever (long story).
She also has the very bad habit of overestimating her own intelligence. Without her search engines, she's just another, run of the mill, "intellectual wannabe".
One sure way to identify her fraud, is to observe her complete lack of originality. Additionally, observe her heavy reliance on quotes and citations. Mear filler and psychobabble. She has never manifested any observable creativity.
Even the nerdiest code monkeys in the world can express ideas generated from their own imaginations.
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhen Did I EVER say I was an engineer? Have you lost your memory pills? I SAID I was a technician, nothing more. I think, a frigging TALENTED technician who in fact DID do design work but never claimed to be an engineer. I came up through the ranks of technology the hard way, by extensive OJT, only a couple of years of college, mostly astronomy and electronics and music, where my music prof was Howard Brubeck, brother of Dave Brubeck. That was FAR more interesting to me than any of the astronomy, math, or electronics training. Then another year of technical training in the USAF and I got into the field I was thrust into because of very high scores on my USAF entrance tests.
Then training and work at AUTEC, look it up if you don't know what that is.
Then more training on Apollo, Apollo tracking and timing to be exact. Mind you, a rather low level technician job.
Then a LOT of courses in applied physics of ion implanters at Varian and a lot more training in various technical fields.
ALL TECHNICIAN work. But in spite of saying that many times in the past ten years, you somehow think I was some kind of engineer.
You need to refresh your meds, you memory is slipping.
So OF COURSE your opinion of me will take yet another nosedive. And I could care less, you are not the person you were cracked up to be a few years ago.
01 Sep 18
The post that was quoted here has been removedSo you figure the fact I forgot that tidbit when I took math in 1960, I should be ashamed.
I told you I use a lot of formula's like the magnetic field strength needed to bend an ion beam and such and you castigate someone asking a question. You said I approached that question to you in humility and you answered it.
THEN used it as a weapon. Nice.