Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: anzaurres1@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 23 May 2005 14:42:48 -0700
Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> anzaurres1@xxxxxxxxxxx said:
> > > The problem is that there are no PHYSICAL objects with 4
(spacial)
> > > dimensions.
> > So what? There are no PHYSICAL objects whose square is equal to -1.
> I wouldn't be so sure. What about that leg of the right triangle
that's longer
> than the hypotenuse?
I have no idea what you are talking about. In all PHYSICAL objects that
are right triangles, the hypotenuse is longer than the other 2 sides.
> What's the length of the other leg? Now, THAT'S funny, as
> in "ha ha". Sort of.
I fail to understand your humour.
The bottom line is that only an idiot would insist that the modern
mathematicians should restrict their research to Euclidian geometry in
dimensions 2 and 3. No mathematician has done so for many centuries
now.
I am not against teaching Euclidian geometry to elementary school
children. It helps teach children the concept of "proof". But these
children shouldn't dictate to modern mathematicians what to do.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: aeo6
- Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- References:
- Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: david petry
- Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: david petry
- Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: anzaurres1
- Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: aeo6
- Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: anzaurres1
- Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: Proginoskes
- Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: anzaurres1
- Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: aeo6
- Cantor's Theory sucks
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor was Right!
- Next by Date: Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|