Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

On Mar 9, 8:30 pm, David Marcus <DavidMar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:

However, in MoeBlee's case, it appears that his "perusal" of the
mathematical literature is skewed by his interest in formalism.

1. Formalism is a philosophy of mathematics, and one that is quite
often terribly misunderstood and egregiously misrepesented. I find
much of it that comfits with my basic intuitions, and I incorporate
what I can into my view without at all adopting the philosophy or any
particular branch of it at once; and my fledgling mathematical outlook
is not at all restricted to formalism.

2. Formalization is related to formalism but the practice itself of
formalization is not in itself an adherence to formalism.

3. I am very interested in formalization as an ongoing personal
project. So my intellectual rescources are sometimes invested in
questions and efforts in formalization. But that does not entail that
I do not also gather whatever intuitive mathematical understanding my
modest intelligence and time for study permit. And since my efforts in
formalization are rigorous I am constantly on the lookout for any
errors I may have committed in formalizing any mathematics.

4. It is YOU who brought the conversation around to formalizing. And
it YOU, not me, who is making an EGREGIOUS error in taking Halmos not
to mean relation right where he says 'relation'. But that's your error
that you are free to make for yourself and even to argue on behalf of.
But you are doubly egregious for not just arguing on behalf of it but
for arrogating that my disagreement with you is sourced in, what you
allege, is inability of mine to read mathematics, while your own
arguments fall flat to the floor as you perform the most ludicrious
gymnastics of rationalization. Skewed? Talk about skewed! It's been a
while since I've seen someone skew himself so far off the edge as you
have with this Halmos thing.

5. If you didn't post in such a petty minded and UNJUSTIFIED insulting
way, and were I to find very much to admire in you as a poster
generally, then I might not mind telling you more about myself and my
background. But that bus done already left town, jack.

6. As to fulfilling your questions, as far as I care, you may consider
me never to have taken a single class in mathematics, not in my entire
life, not even to have had any education at all, not even to have made
it to the first day of kindergarten.

So, in
his case, perusal is not sufficient to determine what is standard
practice. Thus, my question as to what other resources he had to draw
on.

And you don't need that, since I even submitted to your silly "show me
your textbooks" test and gave you examples from which you could easily
draw that no such triples formulation qualifies as a standard
definition. I even gave you a textbook in which your triples
formulation DOES appear EXPLICITLY, even though YOU had said that no
such explicit version would ever appear! Boy, I even did part of YOUR
job for you, even though you IGNORANTLY made a sweeping claim that no
such example (which is even in support of YOUR OWN argument!) could be
found.

I find it odd that he is so secretive about how much he knows and where
he learned it.

I prefer not to discuss my personal background on the Internet in a
USENET group. Oh my, that really makes me "secretive".

And, golly gee, whodathunk that a person might not care to submit to a
questionaire from such a wonderful guy as your ever so charming self.

And I have posted plenty of times that I am beginner in the subject of
mathematics. You may consider my remarks to have no special
authority.

On the other hand, should you ever be feeling positively bubbly to
talk about yourself, then please do post where you teach mathematics,
if you do, so that I can avoid your classes like the plague. Because I
definitely am not eager to have you ramming down my throat such
preposterous garbage as that Halmos means a triple when, plain as a
daylight he says a 'relation' just as that is in the train of his
standard set theoretical definitions.

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Questioning the defintions of set and element.
    ... must therefore be taken as foundational for all of mathematics? ... handle of the objects they are dealing with; for others, formalism is ... isn't the picture of mathematics ... If you are thinking exclusively about the Riemann zeta function in the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... I surmise you mean 'formalism' not necessarily to refer to the ... theories as Z set theory. ... non-standard logics, paraconsistent logic, as well as the many ... I am just telling you some of what mathematics has to offer ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Raatikainens critique of Chaitin
    ... But what in the particular example of incompleteness ... formalism fits the 20th century zeitgeist so well: ... As Vladimir Tasic says in his book Mathematics and the Roots ... Numbers like Omega. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Raatikainens critique of Chaitin
    ... But what in the particular example of incompleteness ... formalism fits the 20th century zeitgeist so well: ... As Vladimir Tasic says in his book Mathematics and the Roots ... Numbers like Omega. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: What is Mathematics?
    ... but we're discussing what mathematics really is (if such ... In my youth, I swallowed this philosophy hook, line ... I've found, myself, that the foundational dogma of formalism exercises ... we would be playing a different game. ...
    (sci.math)