Re: open letter to the Google company, on the value of the scientific groups

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
On Sep 11, 12:53 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Are you of the belief that mathematicians are divided as to whether the
sum of the squares of the legs of a triangle has been proved to be equal
to the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle in Euclidean plane
geometry? You are confusing the true proposition that mathematicians
don't always agree with the false proposition that there is nothing on
which mathematicians agree.

The mathematicians are divided as to whether this and
other mathematical laws were discovered or constructed.
Proves come later. You seem to ignore the concept of
construction that runs very deep. For example seeing
is constructing: you are constructing the images of the
people and houses and landscape before your eyes,
what you really see is just a chaos of ever shifting
colors and lights and shadows. Out of this chaos
your mind constructs the world as we believe to
see it just like that when we open our eyes. Leonardo
da Vinci knew this five hundred years ago. I found out
in 1974/75. Others prefer to still ignore it, despite all
the recent neurological insights. Read for example
Oliver Sacks and his report of a man who was born
blind and received his eye-sight owing to an operation
in his forties: walking on the streets of New York was
the sheer horror for him, everything moved and blurred
into each other, just as we see when the construction
work of the mind stands still, or does not yet work,
haven't being conditioned by visual experiences
we all acquire as babies and children.

None of this has anything to do with mathematical proof. Sorry.


Uh, no. Godel showed that, given any set of axioms, there will be at
least one underivable truth, not that no truth will be derivable.

And the consequence is that you can't derive all
mathematical laws from a set of axioms, you need
ever new and fresh imagination and intuition and
invention.

The consequence is not, "Oh, good, I get to make things up and then pretend that those are the things Godel was referring to."


I'm not seeing how you expect that by making the case that *even*
mathematics is worthless, you add any value whatsoever to your fantasies.

Worthless? Idiot. Mathematics is the logic of building
and maintaining, all our civilization depends on it.
But you can't handle mathematics in an automatic way:
there is a set of axioms, and some computer will churn
out all mathematical laws we need. Doesn't work that
way. Intuition and invention are needed.

It wasn't any kind of a test.

Of course it is a test. When my allegedly strange
laws, working together, produce a much better
etymology

Your opinion of "a much better etymology" is not a test.

than 200 years of PIE studies, we have
a test case. I say bear is the furry one, and have
ample and far better evidence than you all have
for the bear as the brown one.

No you don't.

No, it's very bad.

Just because you say so? (to quote your favorite
verbal slap).

Good, so now you understand why no one believes YOU. Have a good day.

> You have to disprove bear as the
furry one, and prove bear as the brown one, and
if you can't you have to provide at least better
evidence for the brown one than I provide for
the furry one.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: open letter to the Google company, on the value of the scientific groups
    ... Are you of the belief that mathematicians are divided as to whether the ... other mathematical laws were discovered or constructed. ... just as we see when the construction ... I say bear is the furry one, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Law of the Excluded Middle again (long)
    ... Nothing at all bothers ... mathematicians than I am, it bothers me that they think that it ... Obviously it is the "construction" part that is the issue. ... But apparently I should instead think of a hypothetical situation ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Math as Religion
    ... Gene, like Dik, knows mathematics and has helped you in your polysign ... you have NOT constructed the reals. ... the polysign construction. ... I do not respect mathematicians who practice their subject as one. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Corrective interpretation of real numbers
    ... > seems easy to decide whether it exists in the construction we are ... latter take the effort to accept that their infinity and their continuum ... Mathematicians are humans with intentions and quarrels, ... Rigorosity can cause serious errors if one takes it a gospel that ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: vote on cantor !!!
    ... I would like to present a construction here that I call the gorilla ... Hence the complications which mathematicians ... Hence all of physics should ...
    (sci.math)