Timeline for Is Riemannian integration sufficient in physics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2, 2018 at 21:53 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Jun 8, 2013 at 10:49 | comment | added | Matthias Ludewig | Probably, you don't need mathematical rigor for physical arguing, and you don't need it to believe heuristic arguments that others tell you. But when you are doing physical research on your own, it may happen that you are far beyond mathematical rigor and suddenly come to a contradiction. Then you are stuck, if you are not able to justify your steps mathematically to see which way was right. | |
| Jun 7, 2013 at 23:17 | comment | added | The User | The question was whether it gets applied in physics, not wether every physicist directly works with it. And mathematically rigorous treatments are not just a game for mathematical physicists, other physicists actually rely on it. There is a rock-solid proof of the CPT theorem, thus physicists trust in it—would it be the same situation without a theory of Hilbert spaces, distributions etc.? And every physicist should know about the completeness of $L^2(\mathbb{R})$. | |
| Jun 7, 2013 at 22:52 | history | answered | Timothy Chow | CC BY-SA 3.0 |