Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: "david petry" <david_lawrence_petry@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Jan 2006 18:43:00 -0800
cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> david petry wrote:
> > The problem with
> > the actual infinite is that it is not observable.
>
> This is a reasonable philosophical stance; although not one I share. It
> depends on what one considers "observable"; and that is a
> philosophical, not a mathematical question. De gustibus non
> disputandum!
A statement has observable content if it makes predictions about the
results of a computational experiment. That's not merely a
philosophical notion.
> > That is, we have no
> > way to test (falsify) statements about the actual infinite.
>
> This justification is the illogical part of your argument to me.
>
> Is it possible to "observe" that there is no largest prime number? And
> yet, it's easy to prove, using a finite process; thus we have falsified
> the statement "the (actual) infinite set of naturals contains a largest
> prime". Euclid did it; why can't we?
In fact, an easy extension of Euclid's argument gives a bound on how
far we have to look for the next prime, given any prime. That extension
is falsifiable.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- References:
- Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: david petry
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: david petry
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: cbrown
- Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Prev by Date: Re: on what interval(s) is the function f(x) = x^3 increasing?
- Next by Date: Re: on what interval(s) is the function f(x) = x^3 increasing?
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Next by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading