Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Springer eBooks

Finite Mathematics as the Foundation of Classical Mathematics and Quantum Theory

Felix M. Lev

Published Jan 1, 2020• 12 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-61101-9

Related papers

Mathematical structures and the foundations of quantum theory

Théo Kahan, H. Ingram

Oliver and Boyd eBooks•Jan 1, 1965•0 citations

Why finite mathematics is the most fundamental and ultimate quantum theory will be based on finite mathematics

Felix M. Lev

Classical mathematics (involving such notions as infinitely small/large and continuity) is usually treated as fundamental while finite mathematics is treated as inferior which is used only in special applications. We first argue that the situation is the opposite: classical mathematics is only a degenerate special case of finite one and finite mathematics is more pertinent for describing nature than standard one. Then we describe results of a quantum theory based on finite mathematics. Implications for foundation of mathematics are discussed.

arXiv:1409.2777•Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters•Jan 1, 2017•2 citations

Quantum Mathematics in Relation to Quantum Physics

Manahel Thabet

•Aug 30, 2013•0 citations

My Understanding of Stagnation in Foundation of Physics

Felix M. Lev

Sabine Hossenfelder argues in her blog [1] that the present situation in foundation of physics should be called not crisis but stagnation. I argue that the main reason of the stagnation is that quantum theory inherited from classical one several notions which should not be present in quantum theory. In particular , quantum theory should not involve the notion of space-time background and, since nature is discrete and even finite, quantum theory should not be based on classical mathematics involving the notions of infinitely small/large and continuity. I discuss uncertainty relations, paradox with observation of stars, symmetry on quantum level, cosmological acceleration, gravity and particle theory. My main conclusion is that the most general quantum theory should be based on finite mathematics and, as a consequence: Mathematics describing nature at the most fundamental level involves only a finite number of numbers while the notions of limit and infinitely small/large and the notions constructed from them (e.g. continuity, derivative and integral) are needed only in calculations describing nature approximately.

•May 6, 2020•0 citations

THE MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF QUANTUM THEORY

P. A. M. Dirac

Elsevier eBooks•Jan 1, 1978•205 citations

Symmetries in Foundation of Quantum Theory and Mathematics

Felix M. Lev

In standard quantum theory, symmetry is defined in the spirit of Klein’s Erlangen Program—the background space has a symmetry group, and the basic operators should commute according to the Lie algebra of that group. We argue that the definition should be the opposite—background space has a direct physical meaning only on classical level while on quantum level symmetry should be defined by a Lie algebra of basic operators. Then the fact that de Sitter symmetry is more general than Poincare symmetry can be proved mathematically. The problem of explaining cosmological acceleration is very difficult but, as follows from our results, there exists a scenario in which the phenomenon of cosmological acceleration can be explained by proceeding from basic principles of quantum theory. The explanation has nothing to do with existence or nonexistence of dark energy and therefore the cosmological constant problem and the dark energy problem do not arise. We consider finite quantum theory (FQT) where states are elements of a space over a finite ring or field with characteristic p and operators of physical quantities act in this space. We prove that, with the same approach to symmetry, FQT and finite mathematics are more general than standard quantum theory and classical mathematics, respectively: the latter theories are special degenerated cases of the former ones in the formal limit p → ∞ .

arXiv:2003.05736•Symmetry•Mar 4, 2020•10 citations
Classical mathematics (involving such notions as infinitely small/large and continuity) is usually treated as fundamental while finite mathematics is treated as inferior which is used only in special applications. We first argue that the situation is the opposite: classical mathematics is only a degenerate special case of finite one and finite mathematics is more pertinent for describing nature than standard one. Then we describe results of a quantum theory based on finite mathematics. Implications for foundation of mathematics are discussed.
Sabine Hossenfelder argues in her blog [1] that the present situation in foundation of physics should be called not crisis but stagnation. I argue that the main reason of the stagnation is that quantum theory inherited from classical one several notions which should not be present in quantum theory. In particular , quantum theory should not involve the notion of space-time background and, since nature is discrete and even finite, quantum theory should not be based on classical mathematics involving the notions of infinitely small/large and continuity. I discuss uncertainty relations, paradox with observation of stars, symmetry on quantum level, cosmological acceleration, gravity and particle theory. My main conclusion is that the most general quantum theory should be based on finite mathematics and, as a consequence: Mathematics describing nature at the most fundamental level involves only a finite number of numbers while the notions of limit and infinitely small/large and the notions constructed from them (e.g. continuity, derivative and integral) are needed only in calculations describing nature approximately.
In standard quantum theory, symmetry is defined in the spirit of Klein’s Erlangen Program—the background space has a symmetry group, and the basic operators should commute according to the Lie algebra of that group. We argue that the definition should be the opposite—background space has a direct physical meaning only on classical level while on quantum level symmetry should be defined by a Lie algebra of basic operators. Then the fact that de Sitter symmetry is more general than Poincare symmetry can be proved mathematically. The problem of explaining cosmological acceleration is very difficult but, as follows from our results, there exists a scenario in which the phenomenon of cosmological acceleration can be explained by proceeding from basic principles of quantum theory. The explanation has nothing to do with existence or nonexistence of dark energy and therefore the cosmological constant problem and the dark energy problem do not arise. We consider finite quantum theory (FQT) where states are elements of a space over a finite ring or field with characteristic p and operators of physical quantities act in this space. We prove that, with the same approach to symmetry, FQT and finite mathematics are more general than standard quantum theory and classical mathematics, respectively: the latter theories are special degenerated cases of the former ones in the formal limit p → ∞ .