Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism
From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 11/23/04
- Next message: Robin Chapman: "Re: Ring of continuous real functions"
- Previous message: William Elliot: "Ring of continuous real functions"
- In reply to: David Petry: "Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Next in thread: Lee Rudolph: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Reply: Lee Rudolph: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Reply: David Petry: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Reply: HERC777: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Reply: HERC777: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:54:33 -0600
On 22 Nov 2004 12:09:28 -0800, david_lawrence_petry@yahoo.com (David
Petry) wrote:
>[...]Anyone who dares to
>suggest that those axioms and the conclusions derived from those axioms
>don't pass reality checks, is demonized as an idiot, imbecile, crackpot,
>heretic, or some other kind of subhuman, and excluded from the community.
Actually this is simply false. Curiously, there's a recent thread
right here on sci.math where you can see mathematicians giving
a crackpot a hard time because the crackpot thinks that these
things _are_ supposed to "pass a reality check", as opposed to
being simply abstract notions with no direct correlate in the
real world.
>Both theories do interfere with scientific, technological and social
>progress.
Damm, now that I've started I can't stop. What's an example of
how Cantor has impeded progress?
>A new world view, and a new paradigm for mathematics, have emerged
>from the computer revolution. This new world view strips away the
>mysticism from the mind, and from the foundations of mathematics.
I don't know what any of this means. But I have to point out that
a computer has no problem proving the theorem that the cardinality
of the reals is greater than the cardinality of the integers.
>[...]
>
>Footnote 3: Debunking pseudoscience is a noble endeavor.
I think we all agree with _this_ - hence the variety of
replies to your post.
************************
David C. Ullrich
- Next message: Robin Chapman: "Re: Ring of continuous real functions"
- Previous message: William Elliot: "Ring of continuous real functions"
- In reply to: David Petry: "Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Next in thread: Lee Rudolph: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Reply: Lee Rudolph: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Reply: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Reply: David Petry: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Reply: HERC777: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Reply: HERC777: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|