Re: Han's startling new set theory.

cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

david petry wrote:

The theory of evolution is scientific. It makes testable predictions.
Cantor's theory is pseudoscientific. It does not make testable
predictions.


Given propositions A and B, is "((A -> B) and not B) -> not A" a
pseudo-scientific statement?


That's not Cantor's (set) theory.

Note that mathematics in general, does make testable predictions. 

In what sense is "the square root of 2 is an irrational number" a
testable prediction?


The decimal expansion of sqrt(2) does not repeat. You can check that
by computing.

Han de Bruijn

.