Mizukawa drew a series of shapes on the paper, such as dots, straight lines, triangles, and circles, and the three of them all said: What is this for, how do you study mathematics? Aren't we going to talk about physics?

Mizukawa smiled: Yes, it does look like math. However, it is actually a matter of physics. Sports are not encountered much in mathematics, and not many people understand them. However, motion in mathematics can be said to be the originator of physical motion. Aren't the two most important motions in physics, circular motion and linear motion, the motion process obtained by rotating a line segment in mathematics and the point motion of a line formed by jogging? Today, we're going to discuss whether mathematical sports all have physical corresponding movements.

Liuzifeng said according to the convention: Mathematics is mathematics, and physics is physics. How can mathematical motion correspond to physical motion one-to-one? We know that the number series is divided into equal difference and equal ratio. Why mention the number series? Isn't it possible to extract the velocity values in motion to form a sequence? With the sequence, you can feel the change in speed more intuitively. That being the case, mathematical motion can be divided into equal difference and proportional movement. The equivalence is the accelerated motion in physics, while the proportional one has no counterpart. If you have to find a name, it's double-speed motion. At present, no object has been found to move at double speed in nature. And people are even less likely to do this kind of exercise.

Translations in mathematics also do not occur in the physical world. Because people will always have a little deviation in the process of movement, and the trajectory of most people's walking is a little curved. So, translation is very difficult to happen in the physical world.

Spinning doesn't need to be mentioned. People turn around and spin, so there will be. Car tires are constantly rotating because the car is moving. It's not too common, but it's indispensable.

There are three types of mathematical motion: rotation, polyline, and constraint. Rotation and polyline are partly involved in life, but constrained motion, as the most complex motion in mathematics, has never been found in the physical world to carry out such motion. The ellipse formed by the sum of the distances from one point to two fixed points is never the same, which can be found in the motion of celestial bodies. If the number of fixed points becomes three, or four, can we still find corresponding moving objects in the physical world? Obviously, this can't be. Because constraining motion is extremely complex.

So, I don't think that mathematical motion corresponds to physical motion one-to-one.

Dueñas listened carefully and seriously. Then he said, "There may not be a hundred-sided shape in nature, but human beings can make it?" The key is meaning. We won't do things that don't make sense. For these mathematical movements to appear in the physical world, they need to be meaningful. The existence of non-existent problems is simply mediocrity disturbing themselves. If it can be manufactured, why doesn't it exist? Even if constrained motion is complex, can't it be achieved in the physical world with human intelligence?

So, I think that mathematical motion can correspond to physical motion.

Margarita sighed and said: You all have a negative opinion, and it doesn't matter what Mizukawa and I say. I'd like to digress, though. When you talk about confined motion, I'm thinking about quanta. I think quanta are doing constrained motion together, so there is quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is because there is a force that forces the quanta to constrain their motion, and this entanglement is their proof of yin out of the bound state. Of course, this is pure speculation.

Mizukawa couldn't help but sigh: There will always be accidents in discussions, and I have long thought of today's situation. Everyone's point of view has its own merits, and we should all savor it. There's not much to say about a simple question, the key is to see if you can associate it. We must not limit our discussion of physics to the surface of physics, otherwise we will fall into the trap of purism. Today is the beginning, but it's definitely not the end. We should all think about it and say something that is correct. I won't say anything about those who say, everyone have a good rest.