Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics


cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Unfortunately, David's /real/ axe to grind seems to have nothing to do
> with proofs and computations per se, and everything to do with
> restricting axiom systems to only those whose logical conclusions
> accord with his /gut/ sense of "a meaningful result".

> His agenda is all about which mathematical constructs are "real" and
> which are "fantasy"; the definition of which he hopes is mathematical.
> But that is the domain of philosophy, not mathematics.

Mathematics plays a vital role in our society. My claim is that it is
precisely the mathematics that is "meaningful", according to my
definition, that is of vital importance.

.