Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:49:11 -0600
In article <m46ef2d4qb8agbn0id2r7efu60ivv2lvcq@xxxxxxx>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:26:36 -0600, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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".
Collective angst projection.
Zick's 'sour grapes' rejection of what he has not the wit to understand.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- 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
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Virgil
- Re: Am I a crank?
- From: Lester Zick
- Am I a crank?
- Prev by Date: Re: Statistical modeling of novel chemical systems( AKA Chemist with lots of stats questions)
- Next by Date: Re: Am I a crank?
- Previous by thread: Re: Am I a crank?
- Next by thread: Re: Am I a crank?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|