Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: "david petry" <david_lawrence_petry@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Aug 2005 12:15:56 -0700
Jiri Lebl wrote:
> There is no LAW then decrees what mathematics is, even
> though you would apparently like there to be one.
Actually, there is (at least in the US).
We expect the government to protect us (by passing LAWs)
from having religion imposed upon us. And hence, mathematics
must not be based on religion (i.e. the belief in a world beyond what
we can experience). Doing religion and calling it "art" is a cheat.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Jiri Lebl
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- References:
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Jiri Lebl
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Martin Shobe
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Martin Shobe
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- From: Jiri Lebl
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- Prev by Date: Re: infinity
- Next by Date: Re: infinity
- Previous by thread: Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- Next by thread: Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|