Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/26/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:14:41 GMT

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:09:42 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Lester Zick wrote:
 
>> Yeah, Bob, look here the problem is that you can eliminate
>> infinitessimals by waving a magic wand but that doesn't explain
>> the magic wand.
>
>Will you fucking learn what limit and convergence mean and stop the
>bull***?

Take it easy, odiomio. I'm just learning the newmathspeak jargon so
I'm bound to make some fucking mistakes. Just not as many as you.

> Analysis can be developed (that means calculus and
>differential equations) WITHOUT infinitesimals.

But it wasn't, Bob. I just love the form of newmathspeak. Such and
such can be developed, could be said to be, can be said to be the
result of . . . Bottom line, Bob? It wasn't.

> Between 1840
>(approximatel) and 1960 that is how it was done. Infinitesimals have
>been used -informally- but in rigourous proofs they could be eliminated
>by epsilon-delta arguments as is commonly done. Robinson found a way to
>bring back infinitesimals unapologetically in 1960 (or thereabouts).

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, Bob. Bottom line, Bob? Wasn't.

Regards - Lester

Quantcast