Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 3, 2023 at 10:41 history edited Valter Moretti CC BY-SA 4.0
added 11 characters in body
Feb 2, 2023 at 18:23 history edited Valter Moretti CC BY-SA 4.0
added 86 characters in body
Feb 2, 2023 at 18:16 history edited Valter Moretti CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1 character in body
Feb 2, 2023 at 18:08 history edited Valter Moretti CC BY-SA 4.0
added 316 characters in body
Feb 2, 2023 at 18:04 comment added Valter Moretti Yes. The difference between mathematical physics and theoretical physics is that the former proceeds in terms of theorems, so that the mathematical rigour is a guide, the latter mainly looks at the physical plausibility of achieved results, without paying much attention to mathematical rigour.
Feb 2, 2023 at 17:48 comment added paul garrett This answer is very enlightening to me! As a mathematician using some of these ideas from physics in application to number theory, naturally I don't mind a little more overhead... and, for me, various rigged-Hilbert-Space ideas (e.g., $L^2$ Sobolev spaces) in combination with the Stone-vonNeumann spectral theory of unbounded operators is the most explanatory for me. I've long suspected that physicists took "physical phenomena" as entirely adequate substitutes for "proof", and I can understand that! Using things outside their testable range is more risky. :) Thanks again for your explanation!
Feb 1, 2023 at 16:49 history edited Valter Moretti CC BY-SA 4.0
added 8 characters in body
Feb 1, 2023 at 16:43 history edited Valter Moretti CC BY-SA 4.0
added 8 characters in body
Feb 1, 2023 at 16:36 history edited Valter Moretti CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 4 characters in body
Feb 1, 2023 at 16:30 history edited Valter Moretti CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 4 characters in body
Feb 1, 2023 at 1:09 vote accept EE18
Jan 31, 2023 at 22:20 history answered Valter Moretti CC BY-SA 4.0