Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: "Tonico" <Tonicopm@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Nov 2006 11:46:08 -0800
Lester Zick wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 07:32:58 -0500, Bob Kolker <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx>******************************************************************
wrote:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
I consider Dedekind wrong, and he admitted to have no evidence in order
to justify his basic idea.
What sort of evidence? Surely not empirical evidence. Mathematics done
abstractly has no empirical content whatsoever.
Except apparently for axioms and definitions.
What axioms of what part of maths have "empirical" evidence in the
sense Eckard is tryuing to convey?!? For him, and for other trolls,
Cantor "not having evidence" for his idea (what stupid this sounds!)
means that he (cantor) never foiund an aleph_null under his bed, or
that so far no one can buy aleph_beith apples out there.
What "empirical evidence" are there in group theory's axioms? Or in
Topology?
Tonio
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- References:
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Bob Kolker
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Bob Kolker
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Next by Date: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Previous by thread: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Next by thread: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|