Cantor's Diagonal?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: The set theoretic content of the transfinite recursion theorem
Next: Geometry surface area Contact; related to "flatness"; Pedestal-Geometry #386 Correcting Math
From: Franz Fritsche on 10 Feb 2010 07:26 On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:30:54 +0100, Herman Jurjus wrote: > Transfer Principle wrote: >> >> The main point here is not to attack ultrafinitism, but merely >> to point out that if I hold Y-V and WM to my same standards, >> then either both are "cranks," or neither are. >> > So much for your standards, then. Right. Another funny thing: This bull (WM) explicitly _rejects_ to be considered a (representative of) ultrafinitism! :-) FF P.S. Note that he's _not_ a mathematician, but a physicist by profession.
From: FredJeffries on 10 Feb 2010 07:40 On Feb 9, 2:01 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Feb 9, 8:14 am, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 10:55 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > > Therefore, _ultra_finitists such as WM and > > > Yessenin-Volpin will now be considered cranks (and that's > > > _without_ the scare quotes, since the label is deserved). > > That you consider Alexander Yessenin-Volpin a crank does not say much > > for your method of classification. <snip /> > strongly implying that in Jeffries's own method of classification > Y-V isn't a "crank," even though WM is. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztttttttttttt. You just failed Logic 101.
From: FredJeffries on 10 Feb 2010 07:56 On Feb 9, 2:01 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On Feb 9, 8:14 am, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 7, 10:55 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > > Therefore, _ultra_finitists such as WM and > > > Yessenin-Volpin will now be considered cranks (and that's > > > _without_ the scare quotes, since the label is deserved). > > That you consider Alexander Yessenin-Volpin a crank does not say much > > for your method of classification. <snip /> > the standard theorist Jeffries That you consider Fred Jeffries a standard theorist does not say much for your method of classification.
From: FF on 10 Feb 2010 07:58 On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:40:57 -0800 (PST), FredJeffries wrote: [...]. >>> Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: >>>> Therefore, _ultra_finitists such as WM and ... Note idiot (not you FJ), WM explicitly _rejects_ to be considered a (representative of) ultrafinitism! Just for the record. FF
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 10 Feb 2010 08:41
Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > I believe that Yessenin-Volpin is a "crank" if and only if WM is a > "crank." Yessenin-Volpin is a great humorist. His musings on logic and mathematics are wonderful stuff, quite unlike the tepid twaddle we get from WM. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |