Mathematics for physics: Nice presentations with some coloured pictures.....

http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~emichels/FunkyMathPhysics.pdf

ughaibu wrote:Twistor59: what do you make of this article: http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/d ... 1011-4.pdf
The van Lambalgen articles are these: http://staff.science.uva.nl/~michiell/docs/JSL90.pdf and http://staff.science.uva.nl/~michiell/docs/JSL92.pdf

I'm afraid axiomatic probability theory is not a field that I have much (any!) familiarity with. I think there are some pure mathematicians who might be better able to evaluate it. Give vazskep a try maybe ?

ughaibu wrote:

twistor59 wrote:I'm afraid axiomatic probability theory is not a field that I have much (any!) familiarity with. I think there are some pure mathematicians who might be better able to evaluate it. Give vazskep a try maybe ?

My impression is that he's concerned about foundational issues, but it seems to me that physicists needn't concern themselves with those problems. Perhaps I've misread him, in any case, do you have any views on whether foundational problems, of mathematics, impact physics?

Well the impression I have is that many physicists don't spend much time worrying about foundational mathematics issues. They're more like engineers in that respect - mathematics being a tool to do a job. For example you can get by extracting results from a path integral without worrying about whether or not the measure is even defined rigorously.

Having said that, there are some who certainly do specialize in these questions, but I would say they're in a minority. Of the hundreds of people in the CERN theory division, I can't imagine more than a few who would bother with axiomatic characterizations of randomness.