>you said there was and they are axioms
No. I said there are axioms, period. I didn't say anything about first principles and as far as formal constructive QFTs are concerned, there's no difference between the two.
>There are no first principles in the sense that if there were they would have to come before everything
That's what axioms are. They come before everything in the theory. What do you think "everything" here means exactly? Do you take counting rules as more "basic" than the Peano axioms? Because in case you're not aware the latter implies the former so I don't see how the former can be more "basic" than the latter.
>I never even talked about physics
That's the topic of the OP. I had to assume that you were talking about physics or there's no point in talking with you.
>Yes that's true
So we agree? It seems you were arguing that physics doesn't have first principles a few posts prior but now you're arguing that it does and math doesn't. What exactly is your point pertaining to the OP again?
Math proofs in physics
>No. I said there are axioms, period. I didn't say anything about first principles
Broeh, look at your own first post:
>"There's no way to break them down to first principles because there are none."
Except there is. See Wightman axiomsof QFT, Atiyah axioms of TQFT and Seiberg-Moore axioms of CFT, etc.
Nevermind my dude, I read the post you were replying to originally and I understand now. I guess I just wanted to disagree with you, but you provided good info.
Yeah I'm out studying Ayala's paper on the cobordism hypothesis in Starbucks so I couldn't reply for the past few hours, but I'm glad you've learned how to read in the meantime.
You've been arguing with someone else than you originally replied to.
>qft is all of physics
I will definitely look at your references but I doubt they are developed from first order logic. Without that, it's not good enough for me.
Yes you do, just in a less detailed way. Well at least most of my professors tell me we need to be rigorous, but it's stupid to re-invent the wheel or consider irrelevabt details. For example, using differentials to solve a problem is a heuristic to make computing integrals easy from a physical problem, lets say, the electric field of a distribution. To know which integral you need you use them, but in essense its just a compact way of writting a formal Riemann sum.
My issue with the OP is that they are fucking multiplying time and money. I get it's all for the joke at the end, but since when does the word and signify multiplication? Logically wouldn't it make more sense for it to be Time+Money?
It's good to be rigourous, especially in mathematical physics, but for the most part it's useless and counter-productive to do mathematics-styled proofs in physics.
you dont , even if its a physics textbook its not a 'proof in physics' its a mathematical proof . theoretical physics is just mathematics with the 'axioms' arising from experimentation\assumption ,like how at the beginning of every electrodynamics textbook they state the inverse square nature of the electric acceleration , the existence of attracting and repelling charges , the fact that these accelerations are independent and just add up (superposition). at that point in the first 3 pages all the physics of electrostatics is done and 90% of the text is all the mathematics which arises from these things .
a proof in physics is an experiment
I know what you mean. The problem is that your equations for charge distribution and electric potential and gauss's law are not based on axiomatic principles. If you can't take your problem and reduce it to set relations based purely on axiom and theory, it is non-rigorous.
I don't doubt the validity of the method of finding electric fields from direct sums, or for gauss's law, but it's all predicated on coloumbs law, which is strictly empirical. Therefore, there is no way to reduce the problem further.
In other words, it's not enough for the math of physics to be consistent, it must also be able to be built from the ground up. To my knowledge, no such attempt has been made.