LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  March 2001

TSE March 2001

Subject:

Re: OFF TOPIC - Map coloring

From:

"Richard Seddon" <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:48:25 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (323 lines)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C0AB14.41711700
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Arwin

Tunneling electrons would seem to be vindication of what you say.  =
However, vindication only from the inability of a particle theories of =
physics to handle them as real(?) objects.  Quantum mechanics seems to =
handle them quite nicely theoretically and as an aside to Pat they are =
quite impossible to fully describe  without advance math.  One just has =
to accept an impossibility as possible.  However, much of modern =
electronics would disappear without them.  As I recall both Einstein and =
Karl Popper had problems with Quantum Mechanics.  Largely because of the =
analog/statistical dependence of QM.  If we are not careful we are going =
to be back to killing cats.

Kant understand QM either but have faith
Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM, USA
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Arwin van Arum <[log in to unmask]>
    To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
    Date: Monday, March 12, 2001 4:18 PM
    Subject: RE: OFF TOPIC - Map coloring
   =20
   =20
    I'm of course exaggerating ... . Theory is nothing to gloss over and =
can be very very useful, elegant and quick. But it's a theory, and =
theories have a history of being overturned in practice. People are =
often blinded by the beauty of an elegant theory, but often the real =
test for a theory is when we apply them to the world; that's usually =
where things start going wrong. And therefore I think there is =
definitely something to say for being able to prove something =
'uitputtend' as we say in Dutch, exhaustive. It's not always necessary, =
it's not always elegant, but it's rock solid. You also often really need =
it when applying a theory to the world, because when you use a theory in =
practice you also have an impure domain to cover; practical situations =
do not always meet a theoretical domain.
    =20
    A.
        -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
        Van: [log in to unmask] =
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]Namens Richard Seddon
        Verzonden: dinsdag 13 maart 2001 0:01
        Aan: [log in to unmask]
        Onderwerp: Re: OFF TOPIC - Map coloring
       =20
       =20
        Arwin:
        =20
        Didn't Kant maintain precisely the opposite? =20
        =20
        Still trying to understrand Kant but can't
        Rick Seddon
        McIntosh, NM, USA
        =20
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Arwin van Arum <[log in to unmask]>
            To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
            Date: Monday, March 12, 2001 3:52 PM
            Subject: RE: OFF TOPIC - Map coloring
           =20
           =20
            With which you only illustrate that a theoretical proof is =
only better when a practical proof is impossible.
            =20
            A.
                -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
                Van: [log in to unmask] =
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]Namens [log in to unmask]
                Verzonden: maandag 12 maart 2001 23:39
                Aan: [log in to unmask]
                Onderwerp: Re: OFF TOPIC - Map coloring
               =20
               =20
                In a message dated 3/12/01 2:47:08 PM Eastern Standard =
Time,=20
                [log in to unmask] writes:=20
               =20
               =20
               =20
                    . Usually once the practical proof has been =
achieved, this is stronger proof=20
                    than theoretical proof, because to be one-hundred =
percent certain of a=20
                    theoretical proof you just have to be sure that the =
theory will correctly=20
                    predict any given situation that lies within its =
domain, and the least=20
                    doubtful way of doing so is to test it with every =
possible situation within=20
                    its domain.=20
                   =20
               =20
               =20
                It seems to me a mathematician would disagree with your =
definition of proof,=20
                and I'm inclined to agree with the mathematical =
assumption that the=20
                theoretical proof is stronger, which is precisely why we =
learned to do all=20
                those geometrical proofs in high school. With a =
geometrical proof in hand=20
                that certain relationships can be found in a right angle =
triangle, one no=20
                longer needs to check every right angle triangle in the =
universe to see if it=20
                works every time.=20
               =20
                pat=20


------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C0AB14.41711700
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 =
Transitional//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 =
Transitional//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Arwin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Tunneling electrons would seem to be vindication of =
what you=20
say.&nbsp; However, vindication only from the inability of a particle =
theories=20
of physics to handle them as real(?) objects.&nbsp; Quantum mechanics =
seems to=20
handle them quite nicely theoretically and as an aside to Pat they are =
quite=20
impossible to fully describe&nbsp; without advance math.&nbsp; One just =
has to=20
accept an impossibility as possible.&nbsp; However, much of modern =
electronics=20
would disappear without them.&nbsp; As I recall both Einstein and Karl =
Popper=20
had problems with Quantum Mechanics.&nbsp; Largely because of the=20
analog/statistical dependence of QM.&nbsp; If we are not careful we are =
going to=20
be back to killing cats.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Kant understand QM either but have=20
faith</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Rick Seddon</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>McIntosh, NM, USA</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px">
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><B>-----Original =
Message-----</B><BR><B>From:=20
    </B>Arwin van Arum &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>&gt;<BR><B>To:=
=20
    </B><A =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>=20
    &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>&gt;<BR>=
<B>Date:=20
    </B>Monday, March 12, 2001 4:18 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>RE: OFF TOPIC =
- Map=20
    coloring<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
    <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D144531623-12032001>I'm of course exaggerating ... . Theory =
is nothing=20
    to&nbsp;gloss over and can be very&nbsp;very useful, elegant and =
quick. But=20
    it's a theory, and theories have a history of being overturned in =
practice.=20
    People are often blinded by the beauty of an elegant theory, but =
often the=20
    real test for a theory is when we apply them to the world; that's =
usually=20
    where things start going wrong. And therefore I think there is =
definitely=20
    something to say for being able to prove something 'uitputtend' as =
we say in=20
    Dutch, exhaustive. It's not always necessary, it's not always =
elegant, but=20
    it's rock solid. You also often really need it when applying a =
theory to the=20
    world, because when you use a theory in practice you also have an =
impure=20
    domain to cover; practical situations do not always meet a =
theoretical=20
    domain.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D144531623-12032001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
    class=3D144531623-12032001>A.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
    <BLOCKQUOTE=20
    style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
        <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir =3D ltr><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
        size=3D2>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----<BR><B>Van:</B>=20
        [log in to unmask]
        [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<B>Namens </B>Richard=20
        Seddon<BR><B>Verzonden:</B> dinsdag 13 maart 2001 =
0:01<BR><B>Aan:</B>=20
        [log in to unmask]<BR><B>Onderwerp:</B> Re: OFF TOPIC - Map=20
        coloring<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
        <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Arwin:</FONT></DIV>
        <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
        <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Didn't Kant maintain precisely the =
opposite?&nbsp;=20
        </FONT></DIV>
        <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
        <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Still trying to understrand =
Kant but=20
        can't</FONT></DIV>
        <DIV><FONT size=3D2>Rick Seddon</FONT></DIV>
        <DIV><FONT size=3D2>McIntosh, NM, USA</FONT></DIV>
        <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
        <BLOCKQUOTE=20
        style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
            <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><B>-----Original=20
            Message-----</B><BR><B>From: </B>Arwin van Arum &lt;<A=20
            =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>&gt;<BR><B>To:=
=20
            </B><A=20
            =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>=20
            &lt;<A=20
            =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A>&gt;<BR>=
<B>Date:=20
            </B>Monday, March 12, 2001 3:52 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>RE: =
OFF TOPIC=20
            - Map coloring<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
            <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
            class=3D361415622-12032001>With which you only illustrate =
that a=20
            theoretical proof is only better when a practical proof is=20
            impossible.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
            <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
            class=3D361415622-12032001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
            <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
            class=3D361415622-12032001>A.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
            <BLOCKQUOTE=20
            style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
                <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir =3D =
ltr><FONT=20
                face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Oorspronkelijk=20
                bericht-----<BR><B>Van:</B> [log in to unmask] =

                [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<B>Namens=20
                </B>[log in to unmask]<BR><B>Verzonden:</B> maandag 12 =
maart 2001=20
                23:39<BR><B>Aan:</B> =
[log in to unmask]<BR><B>Onderwerp:</B>=20
                Re: OFF TOPIC - Map coloring<BR><BR></DIV></FONT><FONT=20
                face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3D"Arial Narrow" =
lang=3D0 size=3D3=20
                FAMILY =3D SANSSERIF><B>In a message dated 3/12/01 =
2:47:08 PM=20
                Eastern Standard Time, <BR>[log in to unmask] writes:=20
                <BR><BR></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial =
lang=3D0 size=3D2=20
                FAMILY =3D SANSSERIF></B><BR></FONT><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial=20
                lang=3D0 size=3D2 FAMILY =3D SANSSERIF>
                <BLOCKQUOTE=20
                style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: =
5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"=20
                TYPE =3D CITE>. Usually once the practical proof has =
been=20
                    achieved, this is stronger proof <BR>than =
theoretical proof,=20
                    because to be one-hundred percent certain of a=20
                    <BR>theoretical proof you just have to be sure that =
the=20
                    theory will correctly <BR>predict any given =
situation that=20
                    lies within its domain, and the least <BR>doubtful =
way of=20
                    doing so is to test it with every possible situation =
within=20
                    <BR>its domain. </FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 =
face=3DArial lang=3D0=20
                    size=3D2 FAMILY =3D =
SANSSERIF><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></FONT><FONT=20
                color=3D#000000 face=3D"Arial Narrow" lang=3D0 size=3D3 =
FAMILY =3D=20
                SANSSERIF><B><BR>It seems to me a mathematician would =
disagree=20
                with your definition of proof, <BR>and I'm inclined to =
agree=20
                with the mathematical assumption that the =
<BR>theoretical proof=20
                is stronger, which is precisely why we learned to do all =

                <BR>those geometrical proofs in high school. With a =
geometrical=20
                proof in hand <BR>that certain relationships can be =
found in a=20
                right angle triangle, one no <BR>longer needs to check =
every=20
                right angle triangle in the universe to see if it =
<BR>works=20
                every time. <BR><BR>pat=20
    =
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></B></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE=
></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C0AB14.41711700--

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager