Re: how to list all of the real numbers

On 10 Aug, 06:59, lwal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 9, 5:21 pm, Mike Kelly <mikekell...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 8 Aug, 21:16, lwal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Therefore, to answer
your question, Mike Kelly is one such mathematician who calls
anyone who eschews Infinity a crank.

Why are you lying? Anyone who read those posts will see it
immediately.

OK, so I see that the reason you called HdB a crank is not merely
because he is a finitist, but because he is somehow trying to
connect set theory to economics and politics. I agree that HdB is
wrong to make that comparison. If I have written misleading info
regarding your posts on that thread, then I sincerely apologize.

For that matter, I also disagree with anyone, whether they are a
proponent or an opponent of ZFC, who tries to bring religion into
the discussion. Economics, politics, and religion have no
business even being posted in this newsgroup.

Hard to assume good faith, when it appears you had not even read the
thread you were refering to. Still.

So what's the point?

My original goal was to figure out why some people are called
"cranks" and others aren't. I always thought that the main
difference was that "cranks" and non-cranks merely supported a
different set of axioms. But both you and MoeBlee have proved
that being labeled a "crank" is much more complicated than simply
proposing a different set of axioms than ZFC.

I've never seen a crank propose a set of axioms. Mathematical cranks
are identified mostly by their lack of logical thought and their
misunderstandings of how axiomatic mathematics works. Along with
general crankish characteristics of course.

And by the way, of course it goes without saying that most of
the posters labeled "cranks" are not 100% rigorous in expressing
their mathematical beliefs, but I try to represent their position
as though they were 100% rigorous. Thus I consider some of them
to be adherents of ZF-Infinity+~Infinity, while others propose
more radical changes to the mainstream axioms and schemata.

In my opinion, you give those posters far too much credit.

Once again, I am truly sorry, Mike Kelly, for anything I might
have posted about your position in this thread.

Like I said, hard to assume good faith after such a blatant
misreading. Still, apology accepted.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cranks
    ... can actually be a bizzarre person, a crank indeed. ... Quite common seems to be the mathematician ... we have the more crankish variety that turn out ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
    ... model depends on the 'Fc' as an axiom. ... Mathematician: "So, the anti-diagonal is not on the list. ... Crank: "But all we have to do is append the list with the anti- ... With, the fallacy seems to stem from just not understanding, never ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: how to list all of the real numbers
    ... Mike Kelly is one such mathematician who calls ... so I see that the reason you called HdB a crank is not merely ... regarding your posts on that thread, ... proposing a different set of axioms than ZFC. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Fermats Last Theorem: A short proof? (rev.)
    ... > What distinguishes a mathematician from a crank is that a crank ... > Assume that a, b, and n are positive integers with b> a. ... I tried your suggestion, plus some variants. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: how to list all of the real numbers
    ... Mike Kelly is one such mathematician who calls ... so I see that the reason you called HdB a crank is not merely ... proposing a different set of axioms than ZFC. ... here makes not progress but actually continues to bury himself deeper ...
    (sci.math)