The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Chuck Simmons
Organization: You jest.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.33 i586)
Subject: Re: How does a mixer work?
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DB2E3CE.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DB41488.email@example.com> <3DB43497.A32B8380@webaccess.net> <3DB45343.E61C1CCB@webaccess.net> <3DB466BC.593D4D35@webaccess.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:31:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 05:31:03 PDT
Kevin Aylward wrote:
> "Chuck Simmons" wrote in message
> The Fourier transform is a
> > mathematical construct and is not physics at all by any means and
> > can be.
> The Fourier transform is used to model physical processes. If the model
> is correct, so are the physical results the mathematical model predicts.
That is application and has nothing to do with Fourier theory.
Application is independent of the mathematics used. This must be so
because even in very simple cases, internal consistency in mathematicss
is lost when inductive reasoning (scientific method) is allowed. One
should never confuse mathematics and science.
> >It is quite impossible to argue a mathematical point using
> > physics as the basis.
> >It is entirely wrong and cannot be justified.
> Of course it can.
No. You are then forcing inductive thinking on mathematics. This fails
because scientific method is incompatible with mathematics. You cannot
prove anything at all in mathematics with an experiment. This is by the
very definition of mathematics.
> > There are some charlatan mathematicians who do it but they are never
> > taken seriously. Certainly, in my educational career, I heard such
> > incredible nonsense from physics professors that I can't take you
> > seriously if you use physics as authority in mathematics.
> Your arguing from ignorance. However, I agree there are some
> mathematicians that overstep their boundary.
But I see that we would not agree on which ones overstep their boundary.
> > I am not familiar with any
> > of your physics arguments
> I know you dont.
> (which, of course, have nothing whatever to do
> > with harmonic analysis).
> But they do with regards to a real, physical system.
But you can't reverse the implication. That is, you can't use physics to
prove a mathematical point. That is the charlatanism I was talking about
> > Anyway, you seem to be on the numerical side of things. I detest
> > numerical analysis and do it under duress.
> I have shown you an inescapable problem in measuring properties in the
> real world.
So then this all hinges on whether we consider this a mathematical
exercise or a problem in physics. I took it to be the former and you
took it to be the latter. The two views cannot be compatible unless care
is taken to avoid reversing the implication. The tail waging the dog
does not work.
... The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ... Macbeth
Chuck Simmons firstname.lastname@example.org
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup