Essay Abstract

Has the natural language the same expressive power of mathematics?

Author Bio

graduation: mechanical engineering degree: physics thesis: deterministic neural network and fuzzy neural netwoek master: advanced technology in communication and information research: -Genova,fractal dimensionality and experimental discrete equation -Marina di Ravenna, fluid dynamic and bacteria grow equation -Vietri sul mare, fluido dynamic model applied to soil pollution and associate bioremediation -Manchester (interrupted), Natural Gradient Descent and Indipendent Component Analysis

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Domenico,

I greatly enjoyed your answer to "Has the natural language the same expressive power of mathematics?" I hope others perceive your essay as I have.

Some of the details that I found interesting... you ask, why the formal structures of chess do not represent the reality, while mathematical physics with its formal game is the reality. This is so close to the nature of a Zen koan that I won't touch it, but your question is apt. Phil Gibbs brings chess into his essay as a means of discussing 'invented' or 'discovered'. I suspect a very nice essay could be written around chess as metaphor for math and physics. I also like your analogy of evolution of mathematics through interaction with the world as genetic evolution. Your observation of 'Elasticity law = Hooke's law' and the cost of teaching history with technique is interesting. Maybe so.

Observing Newton's and Coulomb's laws, you ask whether we can write Maxwell's equation for masses. In fact Maxwell did so, perfected (as far as possible pre-relativity) by Heaviside.

In V you ask "why every formal system works in our reality?" I treat this topic on the first few pages of my essay, which I invite you to read.

I very much enjoyed your unorthodox approach, and felt you made many relevant points. The ambiguity of some of your points does not bother me at all. I think that you prove your point. My current essay treats a similar situation in which two formally identical equations are sufficiently ambiguous that their confusion led Bell to renounce local realism. One needs natural language to straighten this out.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Thank you for reading my essay.

    I am thinking that the idea of invented or discovered mathematical physics can give the difference between philosophy and science: if the reality is discovered by the physics, then the reality structure is mathematical (or equivalent languages) and there is no restriction on philosophical reasoning (abstract reality).

    I don't know the gravitoelectromagnetism before writing the essay, but my idea was to write the complete equivalence between gravitational field and electromagnetic field in an Electromagnetic field equation using the same form of the Einstein field equation: the idea is to use a reasoning in natural language to obtain a mathematical physics result.

    The best compliment I have experienced: writing a Zen koan in a physical essay.

    Domenico,

    The hand of the artist is seen in every stroke of the brush.

    My first reaction was not very positive. I read it a few times (forwards and backwards and backwards and forwards) and it grew on me so to speak. You have written abstract prose upon the tapestry of Physics (How's that for a turn of phrase?) Hemmingway would be pleased.

    Your work made me think of something from college ... something I had not thought of in many years. Bear with me if you will. I think it will entertain you. During a break in studies, I found myself at a party off-campus. It was at a private home. One of the walls inside the home was covered with doodles and drawings and such things. People would simply stand in front of the wall and draw. It had obviously been going on for a long time because the drawings were by multiple people and some of the drawings interacted with prior drawings. Believe it or not, it actually looked pretty good. There was nothing tasteless or profane. It was mostly stuff like geometric shapes, people, rainbows, animals, stick figures, etc.

    So, in the spirit of your essay and that wall, please allow me to doodle a little. On the wall near the roman numeral VII, there are some sketches by an artist with initials AE. There is a very nice train moving past a stick-figure man. The weather is not very good because there is also a bolt of lightning striking nearby. But don't worry, it did not hit the man. The equation (t1/t2) = (1 v/c)/(1 - v/c) is written nearby and so is the equation v = 0. The latter equation must have excited AE quite a bit because there are several big curly kind of exclamation points by it.

    If I may, I would like to make one tiny little change to this sketch. I would like to doodle in the letter i before both of the v/c terms.

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

      Thank you for reading my essay.

      You have the reading key of the essay, and I thought to resemble the act of discovery.

      I live 26 km from the place where Hemingway wrote The Old Man and the Sea, and I am sure that my essay style would not like to he.

      The real story of the murals is beautiful, and remind me three things: (1) in Italy we have Wu Ming, that wrote collective work, (2) that the science is like a murals, where every scientist writes with his stile, connecting with previous images, (3) that the human life is like a murals, that slowly disappears after painting.

      I thought of writing essays, and posts, like a graffiti artist, so that there is free access, and freedom to cancel and alter.

      I'm glad you enjoyed the story about the mural on the wall. It seemed very appropriate to the situation. Think about including i as I described.

      Also, I was not stating that your style was like Hemmingway. The events in France had me thinking about "For Whom the Bell Tolls" so I had Hemmingway on my mind. I do think that he would be delighted with a style that paints with words.

      Regards,

      Gary Simpson

      I wish to be more clear; if I can deduce that the Einstein field equation for an electromagnetic field is

      [math]

      R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} R = -\frac{8 \pi k}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}

      [\equation]

      then the solution of the two fields are equal, and it is possible to use the solutions of one equation to another solution; the invariant mass in the Einstein equation don't change in the motion, like the invariant charge don't change in the motion, but the observer could measure a change of the fields, that can interpret like a change in the charge.

      In this moment, I don't understand the problem with the normalization, because the relativistic equations are identical for a collision between two charges and a collision between to masses; I must to study the problem in some classical text.

      An other problem is that the classical solutions can be obtained with a single field, and the electric curvature is a method to solve the relativistic problem; this does not prove its existence: it is only a mathematical object that needed to solve a problem, it is measured indirectly.

      When I wrote "I don't understand the problem with the normalization", I made a mistake, I would write "I don't understand the problem with the renormalization".

      7 days later

      I am thinking that there are programs to formal verification of mathematics; so that the program language contains the mathematics. So that in the computer there is a mathematical representation that is different from our (there are not whiteboards with our artistic formulas), and that is a pure logic.

      If there will be the possibility to explore the unknown demonstrations, with an automatic (random) search algorithm, then the pure mathematics should be a natural language.

      I'm glad the just votes, if I wrote an article for publication on any scientific journal would have chosen a different style, and purpose would have been different.

      4 days later

      I wish to thank all those who have permitted to include this Latex equation display, in the forum:

      [math]R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} R = -\frac{8 \pi k}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu} [/math]

      15 days later

      Dear Domenico,

      I just went through your essay

      How many fractions can you slice a cake in to? Is there a smallest possible slice? Can you slice beyond the size of the edge of your knife/

      You may wish to check my essay to see how I answer these questions.

      Akinbo

      Your work is interesting and has some lengthy parts of permissible facts derived from artistically formulas.

      Sincerely,

      Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

      I am thinking that the scattering between an electron, and a positron, has a number of observables, and relativistic fields; then a collision of neutral massive objects (cooled near absolute zero to make quantum object, and with the size that will produce the same forces) is indistinguible in the observable, and in the relativistic fields (there is only a difference for the dimension of the object, so that the borders are different): there is a perfect equivalence of each quantum observable, and each relativistic field, and each second quantization formalism, using a correspondence particle-antiparticle and mass-mass interaction.

      10 days later

      Dear Domenico Oricchio,

      Wow. I'm glad I finally got around to reading your essay. By far the most unconventional of the essays I've read so far. I love that you presented it in reverse order. I thought it was very appropriate that you did so, and my reason for thinking that is alluded to in my essay, Doctors of the Ring - The Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into Consciousness. You'll see that I also went the unconventional, artistic route.

      It may be in bad taste to ask an artist why he painted the way he did, so rather than asking, I'll tell you why I think it is so appropriate.

      Our perception of physical reality is a reflection and so we try to make sense of it in reverse. And I mean reflection in the literal sense of the word. Mass and its position in space are only relatively constant - relative to their own rest frame - and the only way that we can perceive of them is through interactions with motion (for example scattering light or motion of the background), which changes what we are trying to observe. As you said, "everything changes, everything is in motion, it is a long journey that will never end." Motion is a derivative (a tangent as you said). It is change (the only constant is change). But motion is perceived as change in position with respect to something else. The "something else" is also motion, but we artificially standardize it to give it a constant denomination, which we call "time". So this single tangent dimension of motion is represented mathematically as a "conformal projection" onto a two-dimensional plane of space and time. Spacetime is the mirror in which we view our reflection. Every time we look in the mirror, we see our own eyes looking back at us so we tend to believe what we see. We think that the physical manifestation is real when in fact, it is only a trick "my beautiful friend conscience." And it's a tragedy because most scientists don't realize how vital it is for humanity to understand the metamorphosis called consciousness. For that, we rely on the artists. Fortunately, some scientists are also artists.

      You asked if it would be possible "for some branches of mathematics, or branches of physics, express theorems in simple languages: once the results have been obtained, then the demonstration would be useful for future developments." Yes, I think it is possible. But you may be asking for too much because it is not like asking a surgeon to explain the synthesis of the scalpel. It is more like asking a magician to reveal the secrets of his tricks, and there are jobs, reputations and careers at stake. Nevertheless, I have been trying to demystify and explain spacetime in a simple way and explain how the simplicity can quickly become complicated by skillful manipulation of the math symbols. I invite you to read my Space-Time-Motion model and The Unity of Space and Time (both can be downloaded at http://vixra.org/author/theodore_j_st_john). If you decide to read them, please let me know what you think (email to stjohntheodore@gmail.com).

      Respectfully,

      Ted St. John

      18 days later

      Dear Domenico,

      As I am not that familiar with literary forms, I am not sure if my assessment is correct, but your work struck me very much as a stream of conciousness meditation on the relation between mathematics and physics. I admit that I could not follow all of it, but it was interesting to imagine myself in the position of someone who thinks those thoughts. The final line, "Physical-mathematical thoughts prose or theory? " seems to me like a false dichotomy: For all but the most trivial ones, it is going to be a mix of both, or so I think.

      Anyways, this was certainly something different, I applaud your courage to do something different from all others.

      Best wishes,

      Armin

      14 days later

      Dear Mr. Oricchio,

      I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

      I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

      All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

      Joe Fisher

      12 days later

      Domenico,

      Simplify for a quicker development. A universal language.

      I cite Euler's identity somewhat in the same fashion to simply represent what math offers. With math's abstract formulation of logical reasoning we have achieved much. I give examples of quantum biology, DNA, and the LHC representing seconds after the BB.

      Why the Roman numerals? Do you decline their values to 1 to show one language derived from all representations?

      Jim

      Domenico,

      First of all, thanks for checking out my essay and for your incisive words. In a "sea of essays" I often have to Google terms to understand concepts but had not caught "Wittgenstein numbering". Clever application which simplifies the message.

      Jim

      Domenico, your essay is daringly different from the conventional, and deserves some more credit. It encourages reflection on basic issues of semantics and the universe, even if not presenting a specific physical insight or claim as best I can tell. As for "what are laws": good thinkers have been struggling with this for years. Hume cast doubt (as on much!) on the very idea the concept makes sense: we observe regularities, which does not entail a "something" that makes things do what they do. So why is the world lawful? In my own essay, I don't even try to answer that question. Instead, I show how to at least use an assumption of lawful consistency to explain a basic fact about our universe: why space has three dimensions. I hope you and anyone else likes it. BTW, I left a note there for anyone who is unfavorable to at least explain why it did not suit them. Cheers.

      7 days later

      Dominico,

      Very original in concept and style. I firmly believe communication of how the universe works can be equally or better achieved with 3D dynamic visual images. A new example is here, though far to densely packed into too little time (9 mins) to allow mi ost brains to absorb and assimilate

      VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift.

      I hope you may read my essay and assess how well we can do so mainly with words, and red socks with green lining.

      Best wishes

      Peter