Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Andy Smith <Andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:49:22 GMT
MoeBlee writes
Thanks MoeBlee ...
I think this is a bit (actually quite a bit) too formal considering
Andy's mathematical background. You have to walk before you can run.
--
Gulp. That IS walking.
MoeBlee
You are comfortable in the formalism and paradigm that you have been
taught, but everything that you know rests on the shoulders of giants.
Given a clean slate, could you create infinite set theory and a systemic
formalism from the ground up? If not, you can cut me some slack.
Here's a thought for you. Possibly you are so locked into your paradigm
that you cannot think of any thought not expressed in its terms. So
maybe the only way in which you get something new is when some
neanderthal like me blunders in and asks some stupid questions. Of
course intelligence comes into it and I cheerfully accept that the
probability of me making any useful contribution has a lot of 0's
following the decimal point.
I only discovered usenet a week or so ago, but the sci.math forum is
something of a revelation. Snakes on a plane! You have sects, schisms
and heretics, massive egos ... no quiet, polite, thoughtful exchanges
coming to a common consensus, but ad hominem the norm. All very amusing
to an idealist.
:)
--
Andy Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Andy Smith
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Andy Smith
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Is continuum completely filled up?
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):