What is Digg?36 Comments
- inactive, on 06/06/2008, -0/+31This is actually pretty big *****, as harmonic functions show up in a ton of places, namely, in stochastic calculus. Stochastic calculus is the topic in mathematics that is often employed in the application of models, specifically (well, not necessarily specifically, but, what I know) financial models. I'm not totally sure that this will have any real impact on the creation of new types of models in the near future, as, most stochastic financial models are rooted in the Black-Scholes model, which is an equivalent to the Fourier heat equation in physics (a fun filled third order differential equation.) It's still pretty big time *****, I'm kind of surprised that someone was nice enough to mention it.
Sorry if that was really boring, not many people get hard-ons from pure mathematics. - P0peRatz0, on 06/06/2008, -0/+7Buddy, my wife is a pure mathematician and my house always seems to be full of maths and mathematicians. I can tell you without fear of contradiction that there are plenty of hearts, and plenty of "heart" in pure math.
- vroom101, on 06/06/2008, -1/+6Pure Mathematics is King of the Sciences, Applied Mathematics is the Queen. Ever in harmony and agreement. Forever they will rule.
- robbiemuffin, on 06/06/2008, -0/+4no reason to be negative, its just a misleading title. (what else is new?) the key sentence, the real value in what happened, is:
"This kind of exchange of ideas between math and physics is important to both fields," Rabin told New Scientist.
That's all it was, and it's kinda a beautiful thing, even if no direct proof-through-observation occurred. :) - choppa1890, on 06/06/2008, -0/+3I think they have come up with corrections to pin point location. Think of it as a sniper who corrects for wind direction and speed by veering the gun a little bit to the left/right, or up/down.
Warning: SCIENCE IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE! - bdurkin, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2citation needed
- foltaggio, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3xkcd ftw
- endlessoul, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Dude, I don't play Metal Gear, but did you just give away the plot to MGS4?
Not cool, man. - stevetrojanman, on 06/06/2008, -2/+4I like staring at the sun for as long as I can...
My record is 23 minutes 14 seconds... - h3lx, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2Right, but the velocity and mass of the projectile as they relate to gravity are fixed. Varying influences, that is, humidity and wind can be calculated using basic algebra... in the case of light passing through an invisible lens (or lenses) not even the speed of light is constant and without knowing the degree of variation, it's nigh impossible to solve that equation... Hats off to the number cruncher that can pull that off. and for all intensive purposes, Science is an exact science, within 1-3%, Marge N. Ohara.
- Harabeck, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3Actually it seemed to say that the mathematicians couldnt finish their proof but the astronomer did. Also, since were half talking about mathematics, Im not sure what you mean by "direct proof-through-observation".
- h3lx, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1All of this is all well and good but.... If you're observing a star at a specific location, but it turns out not to be in that location because it real signature is warped by gravity, how in the hell are you suppose to be able to map it's original point if all you can observe is distorted through gravitational variations? I aint no genius, but if all you have is distorted data and the variables causing the distortion aren't constant, pin-pointing the origin seems not just unlikely, but outright ***** impossible.
- 3Den, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Interesting article, but very inaccurate title. This does not prove a mathematical theorem in any way.... it only shows a physical observation for which the theorem appears to hold true.
Fundamentally.. math has no basis in reality. Math is a pure science in a domain all by itself. - robbiemuffin, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1ok, but neither has math... mathematics is built on a foundation of sand. We don't want just what is correct, without being complete, because then we have to leave out multiplication. And we don't want what is complete, leaving out parts of the correct ... because we like claiming that we've proven things. :) So we have this weird compromise where everything is true within a context.... and some busy themselves trying to nail down that context, but most don't bother.
If the experiment is amiable, empircal observations can prove mathematical concepts ... If we wanted to prove whether evenness existed, we could look at collections of real things, and divide them up. the fact that you can split some into two equal groups, and others not, "proves" the existance of evenness.. this isn't an ideal proof, but it will do in a pinch.
Admitedly, its hard to apply difficult questions to the same sort of observational testing. - robbiemuffin, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1ha! now, you obviously never took a "physics for true believers" course in college, did you!
but the way you quoted it, the relationship is in reverse (and too strong). this isn't physics-informed-by-math ... this is math-informed-by-physics. - oriondr, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Gravitational lensing also leads scientists to conclude that most of the matter in the universe is dark matter. (or dark energy) :D
Of course there is other evidence.. - glinsvad, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Nope. Nevertheless, physics has never proven anything since it is about empirical observations and we are merely assuming the universal validity of the corresponding laws or models. Math on the other hand allows us to formulate and prove various theses, albeit partly within physical assumptions, and hence all ab-initio calculations must be rooted in math-then-physics.
- inactive, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Mathematics is just a tool physicists use. It's just a TOOL.
Physicists are the workers/engineers, mathematics are the various tools, and our goal is to built the pyramid of knowledge, built with one material of course, knowledge. - robbiemuffin, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1by direct proof through obsevation, I meant ... imagine a scenario where specific facts about math are observable in nature, in a way that is distinguishable from chance occurance, and also excludes other possiblities. .. yeah, its not likely, but there was hope that the riemann hypothesis had a physical manifestation just like that. Then, you could just look ... is the riemann hypothesis true? Well, I should see a nice, even gradiant here... let's look.
I would think almost 100% of the time that sort of observation is not going to be possible... margin of error or some sort of interface issue is going to get in the way. - IceOfDiamonds, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2i dugg your comment for being so false that you gave me cancer.
Math was studied to explain physics, which is life. So saying math has "no basis in reality" is like saying you dont really need your legs to walk. - robbiemuffin, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1:) ok well no matter, to me. but where did it say that? I didn't see that.
- SLuM, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Only if you're a guy
- glinsvad, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1"exchange of ideas between math and physics is important"
No ***** *****. So that's why all the physics courses I've ever attended were constituted by 90% mathematical theory (and 10% boring stuff)? - davidhallstrom, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Thanks for an interesting well written article.
- Ronian12, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Where are the boobs?
- average650, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0You're right about your first statement, as far as this article goes, though there could be a lot of information that they left out for the general public.
But your second statement, that math has no basis in reality, is not well thought out. Math is based on how this world works. Math models much of this world. It must correspond to reality. You're right that in a sense that we could construct it in almost anyway we want, something like we could have made the basic number line logarithmic instead of linear, or in other similar ways. But math must correspond to reality or it's useless. So much of this world is explained my mathematics. - sanosuke001, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0If I were king of this night, would you become my queen?
- 3Den, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0I think I chose the wrong words.. as obviously tah'ts correct.
I was eluding to the argument htat Math is not science, as it is purely abstract. It is used to explain reality, but it is always only an approximation - it is not reality itself. - elephanterin, on 06/09/2008, -0/+0yaaay i love practical science. matters of the heart. amen!
- awwsnap, on 06/06/2008, -10/+8dugg for scientists finding hearts in pure mathematics.
- durgahutt, on 06/06/2008, -3/+1Funny ***** man. LOL
- verenditas, on 06/06/2008, -10/+4I would comment, but my math and astronomy licenses have been revoked.
- maijc, on 06/06/2008, -13/+2THESE COMMENTS SUCKS!!!
- TheBogie, on 06/06/2008, -19/+6But can it prove Hilliary's Math? Maybe astrology would do a better job at that ...
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is