Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 11/22/04
- Next message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Maybe in reply to: fishfry: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:30:19 -0500
In <20041120231747.626$ze@newsreader.com>, on 11/21/2004
at 04:17 AM, curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) said:
>Until I master the language of set theory and learn the exact meaning
>of all the ideas it's built on, I won't be able to even point to the
>problem, let alone argue the issue here.
It's statements like that that show you to be a crank. You have faith
that there is a problem in the discipline, even though you are aware
that you lack the basic tools, and even though you have made it
abundantly clear that you lack the necessary precision.
>If I take the time to master the language and logic of set theory,
>what I expect to find is that they use a language that makes it
>trivial to talk about an infinite set as if it existed, and as if it
>worked exactly like a finite set.
You would be disappointed, since infinite sets do *not* work exactly
like finite sets.
>So, anything you build on top of that foundation, can be consistent,
>but yet incompatible with how I say the universe actually works.
Indeed, but the Universe doesn't care how you say that it actually
works, nor do Mathematicians. The Universe is what it is, regardless
of whether you understand it. Your beliefs about the universe actually
works are a matter of faith and have no role in a discussion of
Mathematics.
>If this turns out to be the case, I should be able to point to the
>exact tools they use to allow this to happen, and I can point to
>what would have to be changed to bring set theory into line with
>view of reality.
Why would anybody want to bring Set Theory, or any other intellectual
discipline, into line with your view of reality? Your view of reality
is irrelevant.
>However, what could happen, is that if I simply spent a little time
>to master the basics of set theory, I might be able to lay out what
>I consider the problems to be, and suggest how a different
>foundation of math which was in sync with my universe, could be
>defined.
Why would anybody care about your Universe?
>That might be enough to spark some interest in some real
>mathematicians to explore the idea to see where it takes them.
No. If you want real Mathematicians to take you seriously then you
will have to take Mathematics seriously; that means that you will need
to have a clearly reasoned argument as to why your idea makes sense[1]
and why it is of Mathematical interest.
[1] It currently doesn't, so you'll need to come up with a new idea.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
- Next message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Maybe in reply to: fishfry: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
