Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:07:30 -0700
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 14:29:26 +0000 (UTC), stephen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <68588$45791ff3$82a1e228$8581@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Geez! Can mathematics be separated from its "applications" in this way?
Han de Bruijn
Sure it can, just as computer science can. Do you think the fact that computer
programs exist to model chemical reactions makes computer science part of chemistry,
or vice versa?
Well the problem here, Stephen, is that we don't quite know what
computer "science" is. Is it merely the science of computers in the
sense of hardware? Or does it include software? And if the latter what
makes one kind of software more scientific than another? It looks to
me like all computer "science" studies are programming techniques and
calls the results computer "science".
~v~~
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- 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
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: stephen
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: thought up something: dunno what it is (a 4D version of matrix math)
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|