Print

Print


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--