Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: "David R Tribble" <david@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Jan 2006 09:35:57 -0800
Han de Bruijn wrote:
> Moreover, this is the only _scientific_ way to talk about infinity: as
> approached through finite sets, and nothing else, via limits.
Is that the same as the "logical" way to talk about infinity?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- 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: Randy Poe
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Prev by Date: Re: Regression - Least squares
- Next by Date: Re: "Toplogical" saddle point
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Next by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|