**Matti Pitkanen** (*matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi*)

*Fri, 8 Oct 1999 20:34:03 +0300 (EET DST)*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 916] RE: [time 912] Re: [time 911] RE: [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**In reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Ben Goertzel wrote:

*>
*

*> >
*

*> > Physicists look like to talk much. Mathematicians just talk about
*

*> > what they
*

*> > knows without making redundant comments.
*

*> >
*

*> > Best wishes,
*

*> > Hitoshi
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> I must observe that the use of undefined integrals has a rather esteemed
*

*> history in physics....
*

*>
*

*> The Feynman integral was basically undefined mathematically when Feynman
*

*> started using it, then many
*

*> years later, mathematicians figured out ways to define it mathematically in
*

*> many useful cases.
*

*>
*

*> This is just a general comment, I haven't been following the mathematical
*

*> arguments of Matti & Hitoshi
*

*> in much detail
*

The representation of the projection operator is not essential

for the proof of unitarity.

MP

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 916] RE: [time 912] Re: [time 911] RE: [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**In reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:40:47 JST
*