Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:26:30 -0600
In article <MPG.1cfd22b01c496552989ced@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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.
> You are confused. I never claimed there were no higher dimensions.
TO has claimed things equally idiotic.
.
- 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
- Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: anzaurres1
- Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- From: aeo6
- Cantor's Theory sucks
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by Date: Re: R[X,Y] polynomial ring
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading