Re: Another Inconvenient Truth

In article <8e964$46bac0be$82a1e228$26887@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

stephen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Duh. But it's worse. Cantor's theory gives _wrong_ results on too many
occasions. But ah, you won't call it "wrong", just "counter-intuitive".

Why do you call it "wrong"? To what are you comparing it to determine
that is is wrong? What objective standard do you have access to that
disagrees with set theory?

Scientific standards.

As the "theories" of mathematics are entirely non-physical, there is
absolutely no way that scientific methods can be applied to them.
.

Quantcast