Re: Cantor Confusion

In article <457463BF.7010001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 12/1/2006 9:35 PM, Virgil wrote:
In article <1164982199.959381.134510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

We do not yet /know/ that the physical universe is not continuous, so
why should we reject a mathematically continuous real number system?

I do not just agree. I would even like to stress once again that the
mathematical concepts of continuum is independent from its application.
What about continuous real numbers, I only vote for a little bit more
honesty and more consequent reasoning.

What WM votes for, he then rejects when it is offered him.



If irrational numbers are thought
to complete the rationals which sounds quite logical, then the
constituted entity of the reals has to be as fictitious as the
irrationals.

And the rationals and the naturals and all other mathematical
constructions.

They are all equally fictitious, creations of the mind having no
existence outside of the mind. Though the ideas they allow are often
useful outside of the mind.
.

Relevant Pages