Timeline for Examples of theorems misapplied to non-mathematical contexts
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2014 at 20:58 | comment | added | Martin Hairer | @IgorRivin: Because there is no constructive way of building a non-measurable set. | |
| Jun 1, 2011 at 0:01 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | I'm really bothered by the wording "applying the theorem to physical objects": a theorem is a mathematical statement, it can be applied to a mathematical object in the course of a proof, but talking about applying it to physical objects does not even begin to make sense. | |
| May 31, 2011 at 20:42 | comment | added | Andreas Blass | The quotation from Hirsch also mixes two versions of the Banach-Taski theorem. The number 5 of pieces is, if I remember correctly, for making two balls the same size as the original. To get from a pea to the sun, more pieces would be needed (but still only finitely many). | |
| May 31, 2011 at 19:51 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | Why is it clear that there are no physical objects corresponding to non-measurable sets? For the same reason that "Hilbert Space" is a purely abstract mathematical construct with no utility in physics? Oh, wait... | |
| May 31, 2011 at 19:40 | history | edited | Gyorgy Sereny | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| May 31, 2011 at 19:09 | history | answered | Gyorgy Sereny | CC BY-SA 3.0 |