Obections to Cantor's Theory (Wikipedia article)
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Derivations
Next: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
From: Han de Bruijn on 20 Jul 2005 03:54 david petry wrote: > > Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > >> This isn't about >> "anti-Cantorians", whatever the hell that might mean. This is about >> Petrians, a well-defined group in which there is no dissension at all >> (since there is only one member). > > Uh, not quite. For example, in this discussion, Han deBruijn > seems to understand and agree with almost everything I say. Affirmative: Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 20 Jul 2005 04:34 David Kastrup wrote: > Oh good grief. Successor in interest to JSH, are we? JSH is not an anti-Cantorian. So this argument, again, doesn't make sense and may only be useful for the purpose of insulting. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 20 Jul 2005 04:50 G. Frege wrote: > On 19 Jul 2005 21:02:29 GMT, Chris Menzel <cmenzel(a)remove-this.tamu.edu> > wrote: > >> Pretty clearly, you aren't terribly well-educated in set theory. Don't >> you think you should understand a field before you try to point out its >> flaws? > > Isn't that rather typical for a m o d e r n "anti-cantorian"? :-) The basic flaw of set theory is its claim that _all_ of mathematics is a set. Anti-Cantorians do not deny set theory a place in mathematics, but they DO deny set theory its _predominant_ place. So the fact that some of us aren't so much educated in set theory says something about our interests, not so much about our mathematical skills. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 20 Jul 2005 04:56 david petry wrote: > Are you seriously saying that it is inconceivable to you that in > the future, mathematics will be split into the two disciplines, as > I have stated? You seem to lack imagination. Worse. It _has_ already split into two disciplines: http://huizen.dto.tudelft.nl/deBruijn/nag.htm Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 20 Jul 2005 05:01
G. Frege wrote: > It's a rather bad idea to tie Kronecker to those ignorant and > unscholared crowd of so called "anti-Cantorians" [i.e. mathe- > matical cranks] showing up in USENET these days. These are the typical "pro-Cantorian" arguments, as David has pointed out in his Wikipedia article. Han de Bruijn |