- I doubt #5 is the answer because I double checked, and I don't think Dr Murry ever says '1=0'. I think all he says is that if '1=0, then we're in a zero ring.' Or if you're not familiar with rings (you actually are but don't know it. The sets of real numbers, rational numbers and integers are rings), try this: The statement 'if 1=0, then 4=10' is true because the statement is a vacuous truth (unless you're in a zero ring in which case the statement is just regular truth).
I suspect #6 because physics, much like maths, is theoretical: We can talk about necessary conditions of highly unrealistic assumptions. One assumption in math is a concept as simple and elementary as linearity, which appears in linear regression for example, is unrealistic. An example in physics is I think lack of air resistance. I have no idea how negligible this is, but a lot of the scenarios in secondary school physics assumes this.
The preceding paragraph is the basis for the maths and physics tags. For example, the 'quantum-physics' tag says that quantum theory
I suspect #6 is the answer but this would be a mistake by the writers. I suspect the writers intended either that Dr Murry additionally makes the claim in #5 and not just the claim in #4 or that the audience would find a correct claim with unrealistic assumptions laughable.
The former is a mistake for the reasons I stated above unless I missed something. The latter is a mistake because physics, much like maths, is theoretical: We talk about necessary conditions of highly unrealistic assumptions.
One assumption in math is a concept as simple and elementary as linearity, which appears in linear regression. Lines are the first graphical models introduced in pre-university. Is linearity realistic? I mean, is reality linear? Seven hells no. But we can model reality by linearising to approximate.
An example in physics is I think lack of air resistance. I have no idea how negligible this is, but a lot of the scenarios in secondary school physics assumes this.
A higher math example is 'If 1=0, then we have a zero ring.' No one is saying 1=0. Of course 1<>0 in the numbers we're familiar with such as the real numbers, rational numbers and integers. But if ever we encounter a place that has something like 1=0, then we would be encountering a zero ring.
Or simply, vacuous truths. I think Dr Murry's presentation is like publishing a paper that assumes Riemann hypothesis is true. The paper isn't saying RH is true. The paper is just showing a necessary condition of RH. If RH is somehow false, then any reasons for laughability of the paper must exclude that RH is false.
The preceding examples and the paragraph that precedes them is the basis for the maths and physics tags. For example, the 'quantum-physics' tag says that quantum theory
But I assume the difficulty is because the assumptions are difficult to mimic. Idk.
