Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 10:21:38 -0700
On 19 Oct 2006 14:40:52 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On 19 Oct 2006 11:28:49 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You like set
theory in its modern math reification. Others don't. So what? The
group is called sci.math not sci.modernmath.settheory.
I don't insist that conversations must be about set theory. However,
when various incorrect things are said about set theory, then I may see
fit to comment, as well as I may see fit to mention set theoretic
approaches to certain mathematical subjects. In the present case, a
poster mentioned certain things about set theory, then I responded,
then he asked me questions, then I gave answers, then you commented on
my answers. That hardly presents me as insisting that the scope of this
newsgroup be confined to set theory.
Technically set "theory" is only a method not a theory since it can't
be proven true or false. The relevant question is whether it's applied
correctly to mathematics and mathematical issues. You lecture others
about their comprehension of set "theory" but when you in turn get
lectured about various set "theory" pretensions, Moe, you get all bent
out of shape and claim they're spouting nonsense on the internet for
no better reason than they don't follow the party line on the subject.
You're welcome to comment on set methods on mathematical issues
however when those methods are misapplied by set methodologists don't
get all huffy and complain that you're the fount of orthodoxy.
~v~~
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- References:
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: David Marcus
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: David Marcus
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- Prev by Date: Re: An uncountable countable set
- Next by Date: Re: An uncountable countable set
- Previous by thread: Re: An uncountable countable set
- Next by thread: Re: An uncountable countable set
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|