Re: Cantor Confusion

Jonathan Hoyle wrote:

Bob Kolker wrote:

Virgil wrote:

And it is plain that no sound mathematics can be developed unless based
on some axiom system as its solid foundation.

Arithmetic was around long before it was axiomatized and people were
proving theorems about integers. For example Gauss and Euler.

True, but you are ignoring Virgi's adjective "sound". Calculus existed
way back during the time of Newton and Leibniz, but you could hardly
call their use of the infinite and infinitessimals at all "sound" by
today's standards. It wasn't until Bolzano and Weierstrass made things
truly rigorous in the 19th century was Calculus anywhere near sound.

Allright. And they should have _stopped_ at this point in time.

It is in fact their essential treatments that we are taught Real
Analysis today, not Newton's. (Newton's work would be barely
recognizable today with its "fluxions" and "fluents".)

Bolzano and Weierstrass gave way to more rigor in numbers by Cantor,
and then rigor in Set Theory by Zermelo and Fraenkel.

There was a pre-emptive war. Set Theory invaded Calculus.

Then with the
wonderful contributions of Hilbert, Lebesgue, Godel, and others,
mathemaatics today is far more rigorous than it was over a century ago.

Thought we were talking about Calculus ...

Even infinitessimals were consistently defined by Robinson.

I've never seen such useless things as Robinson's infinitesimals.

With the
exception of Aristotle's Logic and Euclid's Geometry, much of
mathematics would not be considered acceptable by today's standards.

Who's "standards"? The problem with standards is that you have so many
to choose from. Are you imposing _your_ standards upon the rest of us?

Even Guass and Euler played a bit fast and loose (although they were
considered impeccably precise in their day.)

Huh? Would you say that absolute nitwits like Zermelo and Fraenkel, who
have contributed nothing to actual mathematics, are greater individuals
than Gauss and Euler? Did I really read this? Can't believe my eyes ...

In ancient times, arithmetic was discovered in much the same way
physical laws were. "Hey, notice that when we do this, that always
happens..." As centuries of very hard work, mathematicians have boiled
arithmetic assumptions down to some basic axioms, and all of the
remaining theorems flow forth.

According to the Holy Gospel of Modern Mathematics, I suppose ...

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/views2.htm

Han de Bruijn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Unskilled and unaware?
    ... So I'm NOT skilled as an expert in mathematics and ... the discovery of the prime counting function puts me ... in the same class with Gauss and Euler. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Gaussian antenna aunwin
    ... Gauss' Law has been part of electromagnetics and ... He doesn't use computor programs but basic mathematics to provide all ... a guy at the space antenna agency who referred me to chapter 1 and 21. ... masters opened up the secrets of nature. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • References: Zeta(2)=Pi^2/6,Proofs
    ... Tom M. Apostol, ... " Another elementary proof of Euler's ... " A proof that Euler missed: ... Messenger of Mathematics vol.4219-34. ...
    (de.sci.mathematik)
  • Re: With FLT, Gauss was a pussy! what does that make neilist then ???
    ... But don't be a pussy like Gauss with snide remarks ... mathematics community, ... Gauss and James Harris are egomanics! ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Machinists; critical machining data
    ... and that number theory was the queen of mathematics. ... theorem) which Gauss didn't believe Fermat solved (you know, ... Do you have any NEW evidence, or credible math sites, that support your ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)