/sci/ - Science & Math

you don't say what m and what P is, but I assume I know what you mean. However, I don't see why it's true.

>>3222010
>>3222014
I disagree. The theory never claims to be write in an objective sense.

>so far as we can tell this is correct
>what's most likely
This is misleading insofar that it's an undecidable question if there even is a way to describe reality accurately.
It's better to say that
>so far the experiments give the same results as the model
and the second sentence just doesn't even work

in this sense newtonian physics is as good as general relativity, but general relativity is "better" in that it fits the experimental data better.
however, unlike in maths, if you make a theory then at some point someone comes up with a better idea/theory which explains the experimental results better

>>3168113
elaborate "euclidean" then.

Every finite "normal" function with finite measure in one of them has necessarily finite measure in the other one, so my guess would be yes. The answer is problably yes, but I'm not sure if there might be functions/functionals which maybe can't be squared. I'm not sure which objects are allowed in that space, probably just normal functions, so they are the same.

>>3113027