4 ms·
> Feynman concluded: “for my money Fermat’s theorem is true”. > "the main job of theoretical physics is to prove yourself wrong as soon as possible." Great exa
by x3tm 8y ago
> Feynman concluded: “for my money Fermat’s theorem is true”.
> "the main job of theoretical physics is to prove yourself wrong as soon as possible."
Great example of the main difference between mathematicians and theoretical physicists .
This reminds me of another magician, Enrico Fermi, who was also an extremely good mathematician but didn't pursue rigor or precision for the sake of it: 20% was good enough precision for him for most cases.
- foxes 8y agoI feel like it is a very "physics" motivated approach to at least "investigating" this theorem. Calculating probabilities is a line of thinking Feynman would be familiar with (quantum mechanics). Physics is often responsible for mathematical development, while they are different, they complement each other. It's nice to see different perspectives, and how ideas are connected.
- JadeNB 8y ago> > Feynman concluded: “for my money Fermat’s theorem is true”. > > "the main job of theoretical physics is to prove yourself wrong as soon as possible." > Great example of the main difference between mathematicians and theoretical physicists. Actually, I'm not sure I agree: even before Wiles's proof, almost every mathematician would have been willing to wager, at least conversationally, on the truth of FLT; and mathematicians also are in the business of proving themselves wrong as soon as possible. The only catch is that we don't count an inability to prove yourself wrong as a proof that you're right ….
- x3tm 8y agoThe difference lies in the fact that absolute rigor to assess truths is not as fundamental in theoretical physics as it is in mathematics. Uncertainty is accepted. Physics puts a premium on empirical results and intuition over the more formal treatments common in mathematics (many important results/tools are not mathematically well-defined e.g. Feynman path-integral in d > 1).
- JadeNB 8y agoAgreed! I didn't mean to claim that there isn't a difference, for there is a wide one; only that the two particular quotes chosen seemed (unlike most other things Feynman said!) not to illustrate them.
- x3tm 8y agoFair enough. Agree that the second quote doesn’t illustrate my point, contrary to the first one. Cheers!