Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor
From: Phil Carmody (thefatphil_demunged_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 10/14/04
- Next message: Owen: "Re: X/0 DEFINED"
- Previous message: Robin Chapman: "Re: How tall is this tree?"
- In reply to: Robin Chapman: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor"
- Next in thread: Robin Chapman: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor"
- Reply: Robin Chapman: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Oct 2004 12:30:49 +0300
Robin Chapman <rjc@ivorynospamtower.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> Eray "are there integers with an infinite number of digits?" Ozkural wrote:
>
> > Not necessarily. Prior to careerist mathematicians of our times,
> > mathematicians all knew about philosophy. Do you think that Cantor had
> > no clue as to what his theory meant with respect to metaphysics? Do
> > you think that he could not see the theological force of the verb
> > "exist" in his claims?
>
> Fortunately future mathematicians saw no need to take on board
> Cantor's theological/ontological baggage.
Woh? It was the baggage-laden ones who rejected Cantor and his work
as mathematical and philosophical heresy.
Phil
-- They no longer do my traditional winks tournament lunch - liver and bacon. It's just what you need during a winks tournament lunchtime to replace lost ... liver. -- Anthony Horton, 2004/08/27 at the Cambridge 'Long Vac.'
- Next message: Owen: "Re: X/0 DEFINED"
- Previous message: Robin Chapman: "Re: How tall is this tree?"
- In reply to: Robin Chapman: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor"
- Next in thread: Robin Chapman: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor"
- Reply: Robin Chapman: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|