Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:26:36 -0600
In article <8746c$44f690ea$82a1e228$18104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Let's see Zick empirically establish the axiom of infinity, then.
Nobody can. Therefore it does not correspond to (part of an) implicit
definition of some real world thing. Therefore it will do no harm if
we throw it out.
Han de Bruijn
By that argument, it will do no harm to throw out every axiom of every
set theory or geometry theory or any other mathematical theory since
none of them refer to anything that exists in the "real world".
If Han wishes to do entirely without any mathematics, he is free to do
so, but he cannot compel anyone else to join him.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Am I a crank?
- References:
- Am I a crank?
- From: skialps10@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: John Schutkeker
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Jeremy Boden
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: John Schutkeker
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Virgil
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Am I a crank?
- Prev by Date: Re: Am I a crank?
- Next by Date: Re: [] A graph theory terminology challenge
- Previous by thread: Re: Am I a crank?
- Next by thread: Re: Am I a crank?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|