Cantor's Diagonal?
in [Math]
|
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 13 Feb 2010 09:15 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > On Feb 12, 5:42�pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> Transfer Principle wrote: >> >> > So I was hoping to find a phrase other than "standard theorist" >> > that MoeBlee and others would find less objectionable. >> >> AK seemed to have used the term "conformist", "orthodox" > > Interesting idea. I might consider using either of Aatu's terms. Your terminology, contentious as it may be, is not the real issue. You will never be able to characterise the group you refer to as "standard theorists" in terms of mathematical beliefs or some bizarre notion of their "rejecting" formal theories incompatible with ZFC, insisting on presenting mathematical statements in a formal language, what not. Indeed, the defining characteristic of this group has nothing to do with mathematical matters -- rather, they're simply people whose idea of a good time is hectoring people who peddle bizarre ideas in news, endlessly citing boring formal arcana at them, hitting the poor sobs on the head with elementary technicalities, calling them names, pushing their buttons, trying to make them fly off the handle, ostentatiously parading their erudition for all to see and marvel at. Great fun if you enjoy that sort of thing, mind-bogglingly boring and pointless if you don't, but not something the overwhelming majority of mathematicians, whatever their foundational leanings, if any, have any interest in or inclination to. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: FredJeffries on 13 Feb 2010 09:38 On Feb 12, 3:48 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Feb 10, 4:56 am, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 9, 2:01 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > <snip /> > > > the standard theorist Jeffries > > That you consider Fred Jeffries a standard theorist does not say much > > for your method of classification. > > In the past few days, there have been several more objections to > my use of the phrase "standard theorist." > > I came up with the name "standard theorist" when many posters > objected to the name "Cantorian" (which was invented by several > so-called "cranks" who opposed Cantor or ZFC). But the name > "standard theorist" is still apparently objectionable. Oh, I couldn't care less how you classify me in your tiresome schema. I just object that it might give the impression that I am a logician or a mathematician. I do so wish that you would use some kind of prefix scheme to your posts so I could tell which ones are whining about the crank issue and which actually have some content about finitism (which I thought you were interested in).
From: MoeBlee on 13 Feb 2010 14:24 On Feb 12, 7:25 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Feb 12, 4:43 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 5:48 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > > their opinion that only they [the standard theorists, as opposed > > > to the "cranks"] are actually doing mathematics To be clear, I responded to: "their opinion that only they are actually doing mathematics" . The part about "as opposed to the "cranks"" is now added by you. > > Who has stated that opinion? > > Many have expressed the opinion of the years that what their > opponents are doing isn't mathematics. Of course. But my response was to your original claim that these people ("standard theorists", whatever) say that only the mathematics they are doing is mathematics. That, of course, is silly, since one may very well say that what certain people (such as cranks) do is not mathematics without thereby saying that nothing except what one does himself is mathematics. > I'm trying to find > a > replacement term for "standard theorist," You've mentioned such things as 'anti-crank'. Personally, I prefer 'crankbuster'. > The standard theorists would love While you claim I'm a standard theorist, would you please not presume to speak for me as to what I would or would not love. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 13 Feb 2010 14:29 On Feb 13, 8:15 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > they're simply people whose > idea of a good time is hectoring people who peddle bizarre ideas in > news, endlessly citing boring formal arcana at them, hitting the poor > sobs on the head with elementary technicalities, calling them names, > pushing their buttons, trying to make them fly off the handle, > ostentatiously parading their erudition for all to see and marvel > at. I at least aspire to it! MoeBlee
From: Tonico on 13 Feb 2010 15:40
On Feb 13, 4:51 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Feb 12, 5:42 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > > > Transfer Principle wrote: > > > So I was hoping to find a phrase other than "standard theorist" that > > > MoeBlee and others would find less objectionable. > > AK seemed to have used the term "conformist", "orthodox" > > Interesting idea. I might consider using either of Aatu's terms. > > > [You] seem to have applied different definitions of same same word to > > different people at different times. > > My definition of "crank" is always evolving. Whenever several posters > criticize my definition of "crank," I try to re-analyze my definition > of > "crank" in order to come up with a more satisfactory definition. > > Case in point: Originally I called Y-V a "crank." After several > posters > complained, they convinced me that Y-V isn't a "crank." So now I > don't consider Y-V to be a "crank" anymore. Is that nice of you or what! I bet Y-V was dear worried, as were all the rest of mathematicians around this thread/this forum/this planet, about what you consider or what you consider not, specially regarding crankhood...;) Tonio |