Re: Questions on sets with infinitely many elements

David Marcus wrote:

Phil wrote:

No, I think there is some form of hustle in David Marcus' responses, as in "Why do you say that," to virtually any statement;


I only ask "why" if you make a statement that I don't know how to justify by a logical argument. In mathematics, we expect people to give detailed air-tight reasons for their claims. This is called "proof". It is a fundamental feature of mathematics.


basically what you said about proving the theorems behind the theorems behind the ... I'm just claiming that I am not going to try to hustle YOU.


You know what? That MIGHT be true. But rightly or wrongly, I don't believe you for an instant (although I must confess that your responses seem more relavent, and less dialectic, lately).
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Questions on sets with infinitely many elements
    ... Phil wrote: ... In mathematics, ... said about proving the theorems behind the theorems behind the ... ... David Marcus ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ...  It's the *axioms* ... If no more theorems to generate, ... bastardizing the notion of an axiomatic system to the point that it ... The program was to be able to rewrite all mathematics starting using ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... It's the *axioms* ... If no more theorems to generate, ... Otherwise it's not an axiomatic system. ... The program was to be able to rewrite all mathematics starting using ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ...  It's the *axioms* ... If no more theorems to generate, ... bastardizing the notion of an axiomatic system to the point that it ... The program was to be able to rewrite all mathematics starting using ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: "Godel got it all wrong"
    ... that, undoubtedly, the theorems have deep philosophical meaning. ... These people are probably not really interested in technical results about recursive functions, formal theories and so forth, as pieces of mathematics, but nevertheless wish to scrutinise this or that piece of popularization, convinced as they are there's something fishy about the theorem. ... Too bad - their being messy is no reason to ignore them or pretend the answers provided by formalism of the most idiotic sort make any sense in light of the practice of mathematics. ... Formal theories are important tools in the analysis of mathematics, and certainly in some technical contexts such as axiomatic set theory where they are most of the time a purely technical tool, but for example what is important in set theory are the basic set theoretical principles, not their formalizations in the formal theory ZFC. ...
    (sci.logic)
Quantcast