Timeline for In what ways is physical intuition about mathematical objects non-rigorous?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2010 at 3:44 | answer | added | jeremy | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jun 12, 2010 at 23:19 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Here is an example of physical intuition which can in principle be upgraded to a rigorous proof: mathoverflow.net/questions/19649/… | |
| Jun 12, 2010 at 22:22 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | I've emended the title to better reflect the motivation in the first paragraph. | |
| Jun 12, 2010 at 22:19 | history | edited | Victor Protsak | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited the title to accurately reflect the question
|
| Jun 12, 2010 at 18:05 | answer | added | Dan Piponi | timeline score: 19 | |
| Jun 12, 2010 at 17:49 | answer | added | Carl | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jun 12, 2010 at 17:48 | answer | added | Terry Tao | timeline score: 45 | |
| Jun 12, 2010 at 17:44 | answer | added | Neel Krishnaswami | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 12, 2010 at 17:38 | answer | added | Greg Kuperberg | timeline score: 26 | |
| Jun 12, 2010 at 17:26 | answer | added | Tim van Beek | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 12, 2010 at 16:56 | comment | added | Ketil Tveiten | I think the reason one says physics is not rigorous is, essentially, that while one's tools are valid, no one really knows the axioms, so to speak. So physics is not rigorous in the sense of 'logically valid reasoning from axioms', as mathematics is. | |
| Jun 12, 2010 at 16:54 | answer | added | Charles Matthews | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 12, 2010 at 16:38 | history | asked | James D. Taylor | CC BY-SA 2.5 |