Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 03/22/05 

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:00:49 -0500

Albert Wagner wrote:

>
> Mathematical terms, yes. But not mathematiker terms.

You are truly a putz. Really. You are. You have been given correct
definitions (barring few typographical errors be me, sorry about that)
all along. You simply will not accept that the theory of infinite sets,
as established by Cantor in 1870 and cleaned up of its paradoxes
subsequently is a good working theory. Set theory is the pillar of just
about every branch of mathematics developed or invented since its
inception. Most of Analysis restest on Point Set Topology which rests
squarely on set theory.

Bob Kolker

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > Mathematical terms, yes. ... You are truly a putz. ... definitions (barring few typographical errors be me, ... Set theory is the pillar of just ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > Mathematical terms, yes. ... You are truly a putz. ... definitions (barring few typographical errors be me, ... Set theory is the pillar of just ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Infinite sets.
    ... new "definitions" for mathematical terms that are already appropriately ... Who is the least bit interested in a set theory which does not allow the ... set of all even naturals or an empty set? ...
    (sci.math)