is all math just theory?

Question

If in reality, there are no whole numbers. What is a 'whole' is in constant flux(even if too small to actually measure) in relation to time.
Don't know if this is a question for math or philosophy

Correct bball, but isn't that the paradox of the issue? That a 'whole' is an absolute. With-in the realm of 'time', absolutes exist only on a theoretical basis? No one has yet ever proved the existance of any absolute..for example "God".

Answer 1

Mathematics is a system created to meet practical purposes and it is very useful within a limitted scope. It is not "absolute truth".

Kurt Godel proved, mathematically, in the 1930's that any system that is sufficiently powerful enough to demonstrate all true statements within the system will have an inconsistency within the system. His purpose was to demonstrate that mathematics was not any more "true" than any other logical system.

In physics, an electron is described as a small particle, but if you ask a physicist, they will tell you that it is actually just a state of energy within a shell of an atom. But, treating an electron like a particle is useful in explaining chemistry and quantum mechanics (among other things). In the same way, creating a concept of whole numbers and setting up certain rules related to these numbers is useful in engineering, physics, making change, counting apples, etc.

To prove a truth, you need to assume axioms (like 1 is not equal to 0), set up rules of behaviour (like communicative addition), and logically use the rules and axioms to generate a new statement within the system. Godel proved that the system will always either be limitted in scope or have mistakes in it. In other words, he proved that it is impossible to "prove" math. In that way, math is "just theory". Nonetheless, it has practical applications which are useful in helping us to understand and construct the world.

Answer 2

Maths is basically just a tool for expressing process and status... subjectively speaking.
For what it is worth it endeavours to be internally consistant... but at its core it relies upon baseless assumptions simply made for sake of practicality.
It is in that respect like any other mode of communication: It only works if all related parties identify with it in the same context.


It rather reminds me of an argument I had a while back regarding the nature of 0.999999999... (recurring) ... as to whether it was equal to 1 or not.
What I basically understood from the argument was that the other person was operating on the conventional axiom of "real numbers" ... whereas I was contesting that 0.333333333... could not and would not ever genuinely be equal to 1/3.... or rather that many fractions could not possibly be correctly represented by a decimal, but only proxied.
It was messy basically.... but the only rational conclusion was that neither of us was objectively correct because we were essentially each playing with a different tool.

Answer 3

Raze 4 fingers - now fold 2 down 4-2=2 correct? Mind you - that does only work when counting to the base 9

Answer 4

I did this numerous years in the past and chosen ot do it on the probability of two people interior of a team having the comparable birtday.I used the individuals interior the class.Out of 33 people interior the only classification there have been no reproduction birthdays.however the instructor used it over something of his training.He got here across 4 instruments of toddlers in his 5 different training who shared birtdays.in one classification there have been 2 instruments.the maths is quite undemanding to determine.that is been too some years for me to bear in mind the formula yet I do bear in mind the project.

Answer 5

Oh geez... Math is based on a foundation of absolute truths.

2+2=4, not "5" because I feel like it should.

Answer 6

stick 2 fingers up, and stick 2 more fingers, you should get 4. THere are whole numbers. Try it with me, 1...,2...,3....,4...,5...etc.

Answer 7

i agree with the lady above me

Answer 8

No, all theory is just math.