Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: stephen@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:33:07 +0000 (UTC)
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Virgil said:
>>
>> Axioms are unfounded. That is the nature of axioms.
> Not good ones. Axioms should be well-considered, and not generated willy-nilly.
So which of the axioms of set theory do you object to. Here is a list.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zermelo-FraenkelAxioms.html
>>
>> There may be reasons for choosing a particular set of axioms, but, once
>> chosen, they are all that one is allowed to consider in deciding what
>> follows from them.
> Allowed? Tie your own hands, not mine. In my world, any axiom which is assumed
> true may be used in any argument.
So when someone is discussing Spherical Geometry, you think it
is perfectly valid to make arguments using Euclids Fifth Postulate?
Stephen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: aeo6
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- References:
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: stephen
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: aeo6
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: aeo6
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: stephen
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: aeo6
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Prev by Date: Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Next by Date: Re: cubic equation - is it really solvable?
- Previous by thread: Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Next by thread: Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|