Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 11:57:32 -0700
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:53:46 -0700, Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <68588$45791ff3$82a1e228$8581@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 03:00:21 -0500, David Marcus
<DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you use ZFC (or something similar) as your foundation for
mathematics, then everything is a set. Of course, while solid
foundations are good to have, if you are living on an upper floor, you
may prefer to ignore what is going on in the basement.
So you're saying that set "theory" is all of mathematics? Of course
since what you say isn't necessarily true that's not exactly a ringing
endorsement of set "theory".
It's quite simple. Set Theory can not be the foundation for mathematics,
because NOT EVERYTHING IS A SET. E.g. a calculation is mathematics
A calculation is an application of mathematics, but may actually be
physics, or chemistry, or merely commerce.
Accounting involves calculations, and while its cacluations involved may
be in a sense mathematical, they are not Mathematics.
So what is mathematics
~v~~
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Bob Kolker
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Bob Kolker
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Next by Date: Re: thought up something: dunno what it is (a 4D version of matrix math)
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|