Re: Han's startling new set theory.

From: "david petry" <david_lawrence_petry@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Aug 2005 12:15:21 -0700

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> Claiming that math tainted by "Cantorianism" (Jeepers!) is religion is
> just, well, sad.

Certainly you're aware that Cantor himself though he was making
revolutionary progress in theology as well as mathematics.

.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
  - From: Jesse F. Hughes

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.
  - From: david petry
- Re: Han's startling new set theory.
  - From: Jesse F. Hughes

Prev by Date: Re: Simple probability question
Next by Date: Re: What did the Mathematician say to Old MacDonald?
Previous by thread: Re: Han's startling new set theory.
Next by thread: Re: Han's startling new set theory.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread