Re: Irrational numbers questions

In article <2e82f$45ab39e5$82a1e228$28034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:

that constructivists reject the law of the excluded middle. So
I said that then construcitivists are wrong.

Uhm, constructivists, construcitivists, ... If your mathematics is as
accurate as your postings ...

Regarding the elaborate disclaimer: Typically if I saw someone
denying the law of the excluded middle I wouldn't just say he
was wrong. I'd say to myself that if he meant the same things
by all the words involved as I do then he's clearly wrong,
and I'd conjecture that in fact he had slightly different
definitions in mind, in particular I'd assume that he wasn't
really talking about what I think of as truth, but thinking
more of something I'd refer to as what we know to be true,
and referring to that as what's true for some reason.

Otoh, speaking to Han it seems silly to bend over backwards
to try to make sense of things, given his attitude towards
things he doesn't understand. Speaking to him, if he says
constructivists deny the law of the excluded middle then
fine, constructivists are wrong, period.

Perhaps what you mean is this: if HdB says something that is right then
it is nevertheless wrong, because HdB says it.

Perhaps what he means is that HdB, in spite of his pontificating, has no
idea what is right or wrong in mathematics, and is hardly in a position
to speak as if ex cathedra.
.

Quantcast