TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Is Math/Science Absolute?

3 点作者 hegzploit将近 4 年前
I was reading in my free-time for the past couple months about the history of Mathematical Logic and how Euclid&#x27;s attempt to axiomatize Geometry turned out to be just a way of interpreting objects and by changing the fifth axiom we get a completely different type of Geometry which yield their very different interpretations.<p>And then after, Hilbert attempted to axiomatize Euclid&#x27;s geometry by proposing 20 axioms and he took it a bit further by constructing an analogue of his geometry within the Cartesian coordinates which has elevated the problem to that of arithmetic itself.<p>Kurt Gödel then showed that this was impossible and the number system needs to be inconsistent for it to be complete.<p>This made me think as if most sciences are statements in their own formal language in which stuff is modeled after, and is true with respect to that formal language.<p>What are your thoughts?

2 条评论

bediger4000将近 4 年前
Math, maybe, despite your very valuable readings and insight. By &quot;maybe I mean &quot;inside some axiomatic system (like ZFC, or lambda calculus) math is absolute&quot;.<p>Science definitely isn&#x27;t absolute. It&#x27;s based on observation, hypothesis, experiment and verification. A new observation can be made at any time. Most theories have some things that don&#x27;t fit, like Mercury&#x27;s orbit didn&#x27;t fit Newtonian mechanics. Right now we&#x27;ve got observations of galaxy-sized objects that don&#x27;t quite fit Einsteinian Relativity. There&#x27;s probably other things that we know that just don&#x27;t fit. So, no absolutes there.
评论 #27740791 未加载
al2o3cr将近 4 年前
<p><pre><code> Kurt Gödel then showed that this was impossible and the number system needs to be inconsistent for it to be complete. </code></pre> IMO this is favoring the wrong end of Gödel&#x27;s argument: a &quot;complete&quot; number system sounds like something desirable, but it&#x27;s equivalent to one where &quot;1 = 0&quot; is a true statement and literally anything can be proved.<p>The converse part is usually more important: given any consistent system of mathematical logic, it is always possible to produce a theorem in that system that the system cannot prove to be EITHER true or false.