Re: The real numbers, and general comments

From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:36:09 +0200

imaginatorium@despammed.com (Brian Chandler) writes:

> k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com (Andrew Usher) wrote in message news:<6e197594.0408282112.bf7c462@posting.google.com>...
>> I think I have realised why the real numbers do not have a good
>> definition.
>
> <snip>
>
>> I have also observed that this trend does not seem to have affected
>> the sciences; I can mostly understand articles in science journals,
>> and thus properly think about the value of their work. Modern math has
>> made this impossible; I know that they would reply that this is
>> because mathematics is more intellectually sophisticated. But, as Alan
>> Sokal so memorably demonstrated, certain fields of the humanities are
>> intellectually vacuous despite (or because of?) their esoteric jargon.
>> Could this not be partially true of mathematics today?
>
> Well, that makes your task rather simple. Write a medium-length
> article full of piss-taking imitation of the mathematicians' babble,
> and submit it to a mathematics journal - just as Alan Sokal did, of
> course. When it is accepted, let us all know.

James might not like the competition. 

-- 
"Many argue that its programmers have turned out shoddy programs, but
[their] objective is to make profit, not superlative programs per
se. By the profit criterion, Microsoft has been one of the greatest
companies in the history of this country." -- ADTI defends Microsoft
Quantcast