Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry
- From: stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
- Date: 1 Sep 2005 04:50:21 -0700
Bill Taylor says...
>> So occasionally the anti-Cantorians end up in sci.math and
>> sci.logic, thinking they have some insight that should be
>> of interest to mathematicians. And what happens?
>
>Well, it IS of interest to me, and I think it deserves
>a better reaction than it typically gets, but a technical
>response is alas beyond my limited capabilities.
The problem is precisely that the anti-Cantorians offer *no*
insight into mathematics, as far as I can see. They offer
grumbling, whining, whimpering and insults but no mathematics.
Now, I'm certainly not saying this out of pro-Cantorian
partisanship. There's lots of nonclassical mathematics
that I think is very interesting: Constructive logic
and constructive mathematics, constructive type theory,
category theory, Quine's NF set theory, nonstandard analysis,
Conway's theory of games and numbers, branching quantifiers,
modal logics, etc.
If David Petry wanted to talk about something new and interesting
that followed from rejecting some of Cantor's axioms, I would be
very interested, and so would most "Cantorians". But David doesn't
ever talk about such things. Instead he just complains about the
mean, intolerant Cantorians and indulges in his own combination
of intolerance and self-pity.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry
- From: Lee Rudolph
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry
- References:
- Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry
- From: Bill Taylor
- Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry
- Prev by Date: Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum
- Next by Date: Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry
- Previous by thread: Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry
- Next by thread: Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|