Re: An uncountable countable set

Virgil wrote:
In article <45189e62@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Virgil wrote:
In article <45187864@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Han de Bruijn wrote:
Tony Orlow wrote:

Mike Kelly wrote:

Han de Bruijn wrote:

Mike Kelly wrote:

Han de Bruijn wrote:

Mike Kelly wrote:

What the hell are you talking about? Arguing with someone who can't
speak English is getting aggravating.
My English is much better than your Dutch.
So what? Your English is still too poor for this discussion to be
fruitful.
Still don't get the point, huh?

You are lacking even the most elementary form of politeness. It's very
impolite to cut of a discussion with somebody from a foureign country -
somebody who is doing his best to communicate with you - only because
you are obviously superior in expressing your thoughts within your own
mother's tongue.
You're a very rude person yourself, Han. I generally don't feel the
need to be civil to those who won't reciprocate.
I don't think I have ever found Han to be rude, except when he referred to my "babbling" recently. Ahem. But anyway, while we disagree on the actuality of any infinity, we have the open mind of spirited debate, and feel no need to get nasty.
I may be rude sometimes, but I never get _personal_ by calling somebody
an "idiot" or a "crank". Tony's "babbling" translates with Euroglot as
"babbelen" in Dutch, which is a word I can use here in the conversation
with my collegues without making them very angry (if I say "volgens mij
babbel je maar wat"). But, of course, I cannot judge the precise impact
of the word in English. Apologies if it is heavier than I thought.
Do you have the saying, "Shallow brooks babble, and still waters run deep"? I figured you picked up the usage from this forum, actually. It's meant, in English, to mean you aren't making any sense. :)

Furthermore, I have never had any trouble understanding what Han is saying, except where he is using some mathematical construct with which I am not familiar. His English is not bad, and blaming your disagreement on his inability to communicate is kind of low.
Thank you very much, Tony, for this sort of defense.
My pleasure. It seemed like a vacuous excuse. I get pretty sick of those diversionary tactics.

So, let's engage in lively debate, and maintain our civility, while chopping each other's arguments to pieces. Of course, this can only happen if we don't consider our arguments to be part of our anatomy. Otherwise, it gets personal.
You are misinterpreting virtually all my posts. You claim that you're
not dishonest so I have to conclude you're simply incapable of
comprehending written English. This makes this whole subthread
pointless.
I have only this kind of trouble with _you_ and nobody else on the web.
Really? You've never had anybody else other than me complain that you
misinterpret their posts? I suppose I must have hallucinated dozens of
posts I've seen of just that, then.

You've never had anyone other than me struggling to understand what the
devil you mean by your broken English? I must have hallucinated, for
example, "A little physics would be no idleness in mathematics", then
:)?
Well, that's a difficult type of quote. Han - I wouldn't mind working on exactly how you want to say that in English, if you like. :)
Uhm, since litteraly everybody is complaining ... Let it be an encrypted
message then :-)
Well, it seems to me that perhaps you're saying something like, "Those with their heads in the abstract should keep their feet in the concrete", though that sounds a little funny.

Math=Science?

Scientists, particularly those in the sciences most dependent on mathematics, tend to think that all mathematics is, or should be, a subservient to their particular fragment of science.

Mathematicians know better.
Define "better". Those that work in various areas of science share a notion which defines science. Theories which have no means of verification are not science, but philosophy. In mathematics, verification really consists of corroboration by other means, agreement between different approaches. In science, where you find a contradiction with your theory, it needs revision. So, the scientific approach to mathematics requires some criterion for universal consistency, as measured by the predictions of the various theories that comprise it. Where two theories collide, one or both is in error. I think that's better.

TO mistakes misapplication of mathematics, which is an error by scientists, as an error of the mathematics.


That's not what I said, and you know it.


The history of science is strewn with scientists getting their theories wrong and then having to change their minds about how things work.

The same holds true for mathematics. How long did it take to resolve the inconsistencies in set theory to the satisfaction of the mathematical community? What ever happened to infinitesimals?


The only major time that happened in mathematics was the discovery of non-Eucidean geometry, and Euclidean geometry was based mostly on the conlusins of science, not pure math.

If you say so. Somehow I thought theories about numbers starting at 1 and all being countable, or always positive, or always finite, or not having a square root if negative, were all theories that were overturned given later advances. Where calculus was invented, the theory took a long time to formally state. So, you're claim is simply wrong.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... My English is much better than your Dutch. ... example, "A little physics would be no idleness in mathematics", then ... subservient to their particular fragment of science. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... My English is much better than your Dutch. ... Scientists, particularly those in the sciences most dependent on mathematics, tend to think that all mathematics is, or should be, a subservient to their particular fragment of science. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... My English is much better than your Dutch. ... example, "A little physics would be no idleness in mathematics", ... subservient to their particular fragment of science. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... My English is much better than your Dutch. ... example, "A little physics would be no idleness in mathematics", then ... subservient to their particular fragment of science. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Concepts are more fundamental.
    ... a merging of Mathematics and English? ... of mathematics and English, but a poor presentation of both. ... are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. ... Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading