Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 13:35:36 -0700
In article <1164982199.959381.134510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Eckard Blumschein schrieb:
I recall being a little boy wondering when I was told that while thereNo, I am sorry, I do not. The continuum is nothing but our failure to
is no evidence proving the existence of god there is also no evidence
showing his non-existence. Are those crippled who don't believer in CH?
I consider the background of CH given in the difference between number
and continuum. This might be crippled down to the truth? Do you agree?
look closely enough. In physics it lasted 2000 years to settle the idea
of the atom and to supplement and complete it by the uncertainty
relations. The majority of matematicians is not yet far sighted enough
to recognize the same situation in their realm.
We do not yet /know/ that the physical universe is not continuous, so
why should we reject a mathematically continuous real number system?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: ZFC in 4 Axioms.
- Next by Date: Re: A question about limits of functions
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|