51
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2026
51 points (96.4% liked)
Asklemmy
52996 readers
412 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Similar things have already happened.
Netwon's laws were rock solid, until we tried to explain really fast or really small things with them. Then we needed Einsteins corrections. Incidentally, we still use Newtons versions for almost everything, because Einstein's corrections are usually a rounding error.
So if we find a huge flaw, we will immediately start using the correction where it matters, and keep using the old flawed stuff where we're sure it doesn't matter.
I'm a math layperson, but isnt this a problem with the application of maths and not math itself? By your logic Einsteins relativity is wrong because it doesn't work for quantum physics. Which also doesn’t prove math is wrong.
Yes. I chose a more accessible example.
Disproving our concept of maths might be possible as well, but to the best of my knowledge we haven't done it.
But if we did do it, we would proceed the same way.