Re: Cardinality question
- From: Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:18:01 +0200
On 4/10/2005 2:08 PM, David C. Ullrich wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:29:49 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>> Perhaps infinite set theory
>>does have some purpose, and there is some phyiscally realisable model that
>>the theory relates to, and this is just the failure of our imaginations when
>>we consider it somehow different from the rest of mathematics?
"Somehow different" is a good paraphrase of cardinally wrong.
Let's wait another century or maybe a millenium for discovering most
valuable applications from nonsense?
Eckard
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Cardinality question
- References:
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Larry Hammick
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: fishfry
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Larry Hammick
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Larry Hammick
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Peter Webb
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Peter Webb
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Cardinality question
- Prev by Date: Re: JSH: What's happening now?
- Next by Date: Re: Cardinality question
- Previous by thread: Re: Cardinality question
- Next by thread: Re: Cardinality question
- Index(es):