Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Mathematical Proof versus Observation

Nature volume 118, page 915 (1926)Cite this article

Abstract

THE history of the physical sciences offers many examples of theories which have been ‘proved’ mathematically and been set as foundation-stones in the edifice of science, only long after and when a superstructure has been reared upon them to be abandoned as untenable. The operation of taking out a ‘foundation stone of science’ presents all the difficulties which are encountered in extracting its physical parallel.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ann Arbor, Michigan

    WM. H. HOBBS

Authors
  1. WM. H. HOBBS
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

HOBBS, W. Mathematical Proof versus Observation. Nature 118, 915 (1926). https://doi.org/10.1038/118915a0

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/118915a0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing