Do infinite dimensional systems make sense?Nonseparable Hilbert spacePath integral vs. measure on infinite dimensional spaceQuantum computing and quantum controlExamples of discrete Hamiltonians?References on experimental realization of quantum one-dimensional infinite-well modelWhy do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics?Good book for learning about mathematical foundation of quantum physicsKochen-Specker property in infinite dimensional systemsAre there fundamental differences between finite and infinite systems?Infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in QM vs. finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in quantum gravity?Help me make sense of the spectrum for the quantum wave function of an infinitely hard equilateral triangle

Why is consensus so controversial in Britain?

meaning of に in 本当に?

Uncaught TypeError: 'set' on proxy: trap returned falsish for property Name

Can a vampire attack twice with their claws using multiattack?

Alternative to sending password over mail?

Can you really stack all of this on an Opportunity Attack?

What's that red-plus icon near a text?

dbcc cleantable batch size explanation

Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?

If human space travel is limited by the G force vulnerability, is there a way to counter G forces?

High voltage LED indicator 40-1000 VDC without additional power supply

How much of data wrangling is a data scientist's job?

Is it inappropriate for a student to attend their mentor's dissertation defense?

What does the "remote control" for a QF-4 look like?

How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?

Could an aircraft fly or hover using only jets of compressed air?

Convert two switches to a dual stack, and add outlet - possible here?

Important Resources for Dark Age Civilizations?

How is the claim "I am in New York only if I am in America" the same as "If I am in New York, then I am in America?

Mutually beneficial digestive system symbiotes

Operational amplifier as a comparator at high frequency

How to source a part of a file

expand `ifthenelse` immediately

Why can't I see bouncing of switch on oscilloscope screen?



Do infinite dimensional systems make sense?


Nonseparable Hilbert spacePath integral vs. measure on infinite dimensional spaceQuantum computing and quantum controlExamples of discrete Hamiltonians?References on experimental realization of quantum one-dimensional infinite-well modelWhy do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics?Good book for learning about mathematical foundation of quantum physicsKochen-Specker property in infinite dimensional systemsAre there fundamental differences between finite and infinite systems?Infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in QM vs. finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in quantum gravity?Help me make sense of the spectrum for the quantum wave function of an infinitely hard equilateral triangle













5












$begingroup$


I'm learning infinite-dimensional systems in mathematical viewpoint and trying to understand it from physical perspective.



I would like to understand if infinite-dimensional systems make sense in physics, especially when it becomes necessary in quantum control theory. Are there any simple and intuitive examples?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
    $endgroup$
    – John Forkosh
    10 hours ago















5












$begingroup$


I'm learning infinite-dimensional systems in mathematical viewpoint and trying to understand it from physical perspective.



I would like to understand if infinite-dimensional systems make sense in physics, especially when it becomes necessary in quantum control theory. Are there any simple and intuitive examples?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
    $endgroup$
    – John Forkosh
    10 hours ago













5












5








5


1



$begingroup$


I'm learning infinite-dimensional systems in mathematical viewpoint and trying to understand it from physical perspective.



I would like to understand if infinite-dimensional systems make sense in physics, especially when it becomes necessary in quantum control theory. Are there any simple and intuitive examples?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I'm learning infinite-dimensional systems in mathematical viewpoint and trying to understand it from physical perspective.



I would like to understand if infinite-dimensional systems make sense in physics, especially when it becomes necessary in quantum control theory. Are there any simple and intuitive examples?







quantum-mechanics hilbert-space






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 9 hours ago









Ruslan

9,81843173




9,81843173






New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 11 hours ago









GaoGao

292




292




New contributor




Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Gao is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
    $endgroup$
    – John Forkosh
    10 hours ago












  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
    $endgroup$
    – John Forkosh
    10 hours ago







3




3




$begingroup$
"Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
$endgroup$
– John Forkosh
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
"Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
$endgroup$
– John Forkosh
10 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















20












$begingroup$

Welcome to Stack Exchange!



I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.

Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=fracn^2pi^2hbar^22mL^2.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_n=1^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.



You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    "Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.



    Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:



    You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!



    In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.



    Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
    Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
    It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
      $endgroup$
      – Orangesandlemons
      7 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
      $endgroup$
      – patta
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
      $endgroup$
      – Martin Argerami
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
      $endgroup$
      – patta
      6 hours ago












    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470675%2fdo-infinite-dimensional-systems-make-sense%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    20












    $begingroup$

    Welcome to Stack Exchange!



    I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.

    Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=fracn^2pi^2hbar^22mL^2.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_n=1^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.



    You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      20












      $begingroup$

      Welcome to Stack Exchange!



      I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.

      Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=fracn^2pi^2hbar^22mL^2.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_n=1^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.



      You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        20












        20








        20





        $begingroup$

        Welcome to Stack Exchange!



        I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.

        Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=fracn^2pi^2hbar^22mL^2.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_n=1^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.



        You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Welcome to Stack Exchange!



        I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.

        Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=fracn^2pi^2hbar^22mL^2.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_n=1^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.



        You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 9 hours ago

























        answered 10 hours ago









        JSorngardJSorngard

        3216




        3216





















            1












            $begingroup$

            "Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.



            Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:



            You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!



            In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.



            Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
            Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
            It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$








            • 2




              $begingroup$
              "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
              $endgroup$
              – Orangesandlemons
              7 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              6 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
              $endgroup$
              – Martin Argerami
              6 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              6 hours ago
















            1












            $begingroup$

            "Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.



            Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:



            You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!



            In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.



            Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
            Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
            It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$








            • 2




              $begingroup$
              "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
              $endgroup$
              – Orangesandlemons
              7 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              6 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
              $endgroup$
              – Martin Argerami
              6 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              6 hours ago














            1












            1








            1





            $begingroup$

            "Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.



            Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:



            You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!



            In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.



            Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
            Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
            It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            "Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.



            Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:



            You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!



            In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.



            Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
            Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
            It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 7 hours ago









            pattapatta

            413




            413







            • 2




              $begingroup$
              "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
              $endgroup$
              – Orangesandlemons
              7 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              6 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
              $endgroup$
              – Martin Argerami
              6 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              6 hours ago













            • 2




              $begingroup$
              "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
              $endgroup$
              – Orangesandlemons
              7 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              6 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
              $endgroup$
              – Martin Argerami
              6 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
              $endgroup$
              – patta
              6 hours ago








            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
            $endgroup$
            – Orangesandlemons
            7 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            "I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
            $endgroup$
            – Orangesandlemons
            7 hours ago




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
            $endgroup$
            – patta
            6 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
            $endgroup$
            – patta
            6 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
            $endgroup$
            – Martin Argerami
            6 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
            $endgroup$
            – Martin Argerami
            6 hours ago




            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
            $endgroup$
            – patta
            6 hours ago





            $begingroup$
            Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
            $endgroup$
            – patta
            6 hours ago











            Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470675%2fdo-infinite-dimensional-systems-make-sense%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480