Obections to Cantor's Theory (Wikipedia article)
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Derivations
Next: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
From: stephen on 28 Jul 2005 10:42 In sci.math Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)dto.tudelft.nl> wrote: > stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >> In sci.math Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)dto.tudelft.nl> wrote: >> >>>Just as a matter of prevention, shouldn't we at least _try_ to find >>>a way of living together, then? >> >> You are the one who seems to have a problem living together >> with mathematicians. What is preventing you from simply >> living and let live? > We don't care about telling lies ourselves, but we don't want that other > people are lying to us. Isn't that so? :-( > Han de Bruijn I have no idea what you are trying to say. Do you think mathematicians are lying to you? Stephen
From: Robert Kolker on 28 Jul 2005 11:13 Han de Bruijn wrote: > Robert Kolker wrote: > >> Most of mathematics is grounded on set theory. Without set theory >> there would be no topology, no theory of real or complex numbers and >> no theory of manifolds. > > > Simply not true. Real and complex numbers existed well before the advent > of set theory. Have some doubts with the rest. But, anyway, I _didn't_ > say that set theory should be abandoned altogether. The -theories- of real and complex variable were not properly grounded prior to the use of sets. The notion of limit was not well defined until the middle 1800's (Cauchy). Even great mathematicians like Euler and Gauss used "arguments" that would earn an F in modern course work. Bob Kolker
From: Robert Kolker on 28 Jul 2005 11:15 Han de Bruijn wrote: > > > Preface to Isaac Newton's Principia: "the description of right lines > and circles, upon which geometry is founded, belongs to mechanics". One of Newton's few mistakes. Geodesics are properly defined in Riemannian geometry. Bob Kolker
From: malbrain on 28 Jul 2005 11:42 stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: > In sci.math Dik T. Winter <Dik.Winter(a)cwi.nl> wrote: > > In article <1122503371.218414.268340(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> malbrain(a)yahoo.com writes: > > > Dik T. Winter wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > The C language is defined by the C standard, as defined by ISO. > > > > > > > There are no "unbounded" standard types in the C language. karl m > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is talking about C? > > > > > > > > > > Of the billions of computer systems deployed since the micro-computer > > > > > revolution, the overwhelming majority are programmed with C. > > > > > > > > That is not an answer. > > > > > > Well, the OBVIOUS answer to your question is, "I'm talking about C" > > > However, I'm not that vulgar. I tend to translate discussions into C > > > because I find it to be more universally understood than java. karl m > > > So what? When someone talks about java with "unbounded" standard types, > > what is the point stating that C does not have "unbounded" standard types? > > He probably thinks that if you speak English loudly enough everyone > will understand. :) No. It was just that Barb's java program needed SYSTEMS-PREPARATION prior to DEPLOYMENT. In that sense it was a STALL for one cycle. I have no illusions that non-programmers will be suddenly transformed. karl m
From: malbrain on 28 Jul 2005 11:43
stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: > In sci.math Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)dto.tudelft.nl> wrote: > > stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: > > >> In sci.math Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)dto.tudelft.nl> wrote: > >> > >>>Just as a matter of prevention, shouldn't we at least _try_ to find > >>>a way of living together, then? > >> > >> You are the one who seems to have a problem living together > >> with mathematicians. What is preventing you from simply > >> living and let live? > > > We don't care about telling lies ourselves, but we don't want that other > > people are lying to us. Isn't that so? :-( > > > Han de Bruijn > > I have no idea what you are trying to say. Do you think > mathematicians are lying to you? When going through TRANSFORMATION what seemed like the truth suddenly seems like lies. karl m |