Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Mathematics

L&FP, 49: Debating the validity (and objectivity) of infinity

Steve Patterson, among many points of objection, is doubtful on the modern concept of infinity (or more strictly the transfinite): The foundations of modern mathematics are flawed. A logical contradiction is nestled at the very core, and it’s been there for a century. Of all the controversial ideas I hold, this is the most radical. I disagree with nearly all professional mathematicians, and I think they’ve made an elementary error that most children would discover. It’s about infinity. I’ve written about infinity here, here, and here, and each article points to the same conclusion: There are no infinite sets. Not only do infinite sets not exist, but the very concept is logically contradictory – no different than “square circles”. Infinite Read More ›

Has a 243 year-old puzzle been solved via a “quantum solution”?

At Quanta: In a paper posted online and submitted to Physical Review Letters, a group of quantum physicists in India and Poland demonstrates that it is possible to arrange 36 officers in a way that fulfills Euler’s criteria — so long as the officers can have a quantum mixture of ranks and regiments. Read More ›

The reality of “imaginary” numbers — discovery, not invention

Over at YouTube, there is a bit of history of Math, on study of cubic functions — and yes there is as usual, some less than exemplary detail — that led to the “invention” of imaginary numbers: Now of course, I contend that this was discovery not invention (I often don’t buy Veritas Sum’s narrative, but here is a way to see the story). In News’ thread on i, I commented at 33: your definition [– Eugene at 8: “there exists such a pair of real numbers (0, 1) that (0, 1) * (0, 1) = -1, where “*” is the specific multiplication rule defined for these types of pairs” –] is tantamount to describing the role of sqrt – Read More ›

At Mind Matters News: If reality is fundamentally mathematical, why the war on math?

Perhaps we all need to recall something: The Iron Ring of the Canadian engineers is forged from the steel of a bridge that collapsed and cost 75 lives. That ring is intended as a warning, not a training manual. It turns out that in the real world, right or wrong answers in math do matter. Read More ›

Scan a pumpkin, see a beautiful world of design

In case you missed it, Hallowe'en started out as the Eve of All Saints Day (November 1). The kids running down the street dressed as ghouls, the piles of tooth-rotting candy and the toilet paper in the trees... that all came later. Thank you for listening. Read More ›

At Mind Matters News: Why just anything can’t happen given an infinite sum of universes

Marks: It can be shown mathematically that the infinite does not exist in reality, only in our minds. Thus an infinite number of universes cannot exist. Read More ›

At Mind Matters News, some fun: Would ET intelligences understand the 1974 Arecibo Message?

In early, easily-mocked sci fi, a little green man points his raygun at an unsuspecting passerby and barks “Take me to your leader.” Fast forward: If the little green man didn’t have the technology to figure out who the leader was before landing, he certainly wouldn’t have the technology to get here. Read More ›

Physicist Marcelo Gleiser: Beauty in the universe is an “illusory consequence of our human mathematics”

So what, exactly, is this “false and illusory” view of our universe? Is this short essay another veiled “correct” assault on the fact of the fine-tuning of the universe for life? There seems to be a lot of that out there these days. Orthodox science is now in a deadly conflict with facts… There can only be one outcome. Read More ›

Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne speaks out on the war on math

Some of us remember when Darwinian commenters chided us for writing about the war on math and the war on science. Now that Jerry Coyne is starting to talk about it, will they start to listen? Read More ›

ID theorists publish new paper in Journal of Theoretical Biology

We hope the journal isn’t intimidated by Darwin’s Outrage Machine, Inc. Just think, some people are now allowed to bring this up. And not just as an inhouse titter, followed promptly by dismissal of the question. Read More ›