Re: when laypersons look smarter than math professors Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians
- From: "HERC777" <herc777@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 May 2005 19:50:02 -0700
OP
Now my question for the anti-Cantorians is: does anyone have a
better theory on which mathematics should be based, rather than
traditional set theory (naive or axiomatic)?
OK, I choose the axioms of the programming language Haskell. If you
can't inspect the set in Haskell its a load of crap, and that includes
all your TOO BIG TO PUT IN ORDER fantasy anti-numbers that
join-the-dots on the number line.. whooo
Herc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: when laypersons look smarter than math professors Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians
- From: george
- Re: when laypersons look smarter than math professors Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians
- From: HERC777
- Re: when laypersons look smarter than math professors Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians
- From: george
- Re: when laypersons look smarter than math professors Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians
- Prev by Date: Re: when laypersons look smarter than math professors Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians
- Next by Date: Re: when laypersons look smarter than math professors Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians
- Previous by thread: Re: when laypersons look smarter than math professors Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians
- Next by thread: Re: when laypersons look smarter than math professors Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians
- Index(es):