Re: A new definition of natural numbers

On 11/14/2006 1:56 AM, *** T. Winter wrote:
In article <455892BB.7080009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
...
> Judge yourself: Methods by Euclid, Newton, Leibniz, Euler, Gauss etc.
> were overly successful and will continue to do so.

At least Leibniz in many cases gave no proof for his methods because he
was not able to define the infinities he used.

This is true. Sometimes scientists found the correct way intuitively
much more safely and correctly then leaning on proud theories.

Can mathematics learn from nature? I think so, in many cases.
What about infinity, I would like to deny any infinity allegedly found
in nature, exept for the anticipated possible way along a loop.
Infinity is rather an ideal concept, something like a surrender.
Those who read German may read what I today wrote in de.sci.mathematik.

.

Quantcast