Re: Darwin, Kimura and Natural Mathematics

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:29:07 -0700, Raving <raving.loonie@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jul 20, 12:12 pm, gregwrld <GCzeba...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 20, 11:58 am, Raving <raving.loo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 19, 11:26 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:11:23 +1000, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John

Wilkins) wrote:
r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

And the paper "Paradox, Natural Mathematics,
Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas" fits far too many of the
criteria of kook cited by physicists (but which I can't now find).

You'll be wanting John Baez's Physics Crackpot Index

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

That's the one. But I always thought it was Joan, not John. She is
the Baez who is the epitome of crystalline purity and clarity of
expression.

Is it 'physics envy' that you suffer from?

It would seem that physicists themselves are most severely cramped by
insecurity concerning their own ability. Escaping from feeling
inferior isn't easy.

The biological processes that elude our description are messy,
confusing and incomplete affairs.

The subtle sensibilities of Duns Scotus are more apt to be relevant
than the deathly reductions in keeping William of Ockham.

Mocking a person who in sincerely struggling to move forward, and
thereby exposes his or her own limitations, confusion and
inconsistencies, sucks the big one.

I expect that many of these individuals are keenly self conscious of
the tenuousness of their own position. They courageously persevere
because some aspect of their insight has worth but seems to pass by,
unappreciated.

Show us the numbers. Show us what Kimura did "wrong" and how it should
be done "right."

That would be less slippery than your vague assertions.

gregwrld

Ask the OP, not me!

... The question was asked ...

Probably? Geometry? Whatever do you mean? Neither Kimura nor Darwin had
much to do with geometry. I see that you are a loon. Your sentences
consist of English words, but they don't add up to any kind of sense.

I remembered a connection between differential geometry and the
determination of genetic frequency distributions.

How many people in the world are strongly familiar with that material?
Perhaps, a small community.

I could name a few.
I'm not amongst them.

Concerning the vague assertions ...
I have no reason to apologize. Prematurely dashing to converge the
description is counterproductive, IMO.

It is true that stochastic models in population genetics, especially
as described by Kimura, make heavy use of partial differential
equations. See, for example,
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MATHMPG.html

It is also true that mathematical analysis of partial differential
equations makes heavy use of geometric concepts as fields, manifolds,
etc, even differential geometry.

That does not mean that the original paper in question, "Paradox,
Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas" has
anything whatsoever to do with any of that. Abstract geometric ideas
are just that, abstract ideas, whose validity is the result of formal
mathematical proofs. Paradox, Cantorian ideas about infinity, and
Einsteinian ideas about relativity are entirely different subjects.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Learning and Teaching Special Relativity
    ... > visualize it and the algebra seems easier once I visualize the geometry. ... textbooks are full of spacetime diagrams and these are geometry. ... > Special relativity is about motion. ... photon guns and photon detectors makes much more sense to me. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: FAQ - (the heretics version)
    ... >No where in this thread have I said that relativity is not correct. ... >independence, but SR provides no explaination for the source ... I understand the geometry ... At the beginning of this thread John said that SR is an aether theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case.
    ... According to the relativity principle, ... same as Landau...."The four-dimensional geometry described by the ... "the most general transformation between two inertial frames consists ... Lorentz transformation, as opposed to a Lorentz transformation in the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The speed of gravity revisited
    ... General Relativity as far as the math goes is that the speed limit established by Special Relativity has to apply to General Relativity, otherwise the theories would be in conflict. ... manifold in which the geometry of spacetime is what we call "gravity". ... were the predictions of GR versus NG different? ... but did GR really distinguish between a gravitational field being limited by the speed of light and the gravitational force still using NG equations? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... So, instead of stating the principle of relativity, you assume without ... >> certain observers should be equivalent and defines those observers as ... >> minkowski geometry as anything but observers related by a coordinate ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)