Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: stephen@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 04:17:22 +0000 (UTC)
Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
David Marcus schreef:
Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
To those who are unable to see it, there is no evidence that there is
any sort of mathematics not describable by set theory. But this is a
vicious circle. Mainstream mathematics simply DOES NOT ALLOW any sort
of mathematics that violates set theory.
Quite a silly thing to say. Do you have any evidence for such an absurd
statement? [ ... snipped "counter evidence" with Category Theory ... ]
Ah, now don't act as if you didn't have those heated debates with some
manifest opponents of set theory, i.e. Wolfgang Mueckenheim. I'm not
talking about any possibilities to replace set theory by look-alikes.
I'm talking about rejecting any monolithic foundation for mathematics,
any "foundation" that narrows down my freedom of thinking. I hate any
form of NewSpeak, whether it is called Set Theory, Category Theory or
Object Oriented Programming. I've seen too many of these.
Han de Bruijn
You are the one who is trying to restrict peoples' freedoms. You
cannot name a single piece of mathematics that is "forbidden"
by set theory. You on the other hand want to abolish any mathematics
that involves infinity, which is a severe restriction on others
freedom of thinking. In short, you are a hypocrite.
I would imagine your understanding of Object Oriented Programming
is as woefully garbled as you understanding of set theory.
Stephen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: stephen
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: stephen
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: stephen
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Next by Date: Re: Can't Prove nC8 = nC12 for n = 20
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading