Re: a < b implies 2^a < 2^b

In article <190d6$4784c2a6$82a1e228$21255@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


************************************************

In some strange way it is a little reassuring to see that people,
including trolls and cranks and their nonsense, continue in their
paths

As usual Han, you say there is no infinite cardinals in the universe,
and as usual you're answered: who gives a damn what is or what isn't
in YOUR universe?

And in YOURs. For the simple reason that there is only ONE universe we
are all dealing with, whether you like it or not.

Anyway you'd have problems to see a number 7 or a number -14.67
walking down the street anywhere in your universe, so why won't you
cuddle in your universe and let us mathematicians alone with our
fantasies?

Is mathematics an activity of economic value? Is it rewarded? If yes,
then feel the responsability of producing something else than fantasy.

If your test of things mathematical is that they must be useful, by that
same argument we must discount all art, music, and anything else which
appeals only to the esthetic.

We enjoy infinite cardinals and all the theory around, it is a great
mental exercise and a rather pleasant one: who do you think you and
the non-mathematicians ones like you (Mueckenheim, Orlow, Zick and
other rather sad examples of the lousy mathematical education in big
parts of Europe after WWII) are to tell US mathematicians what can we
or can't we deal with?

Yeah, yeah, I _enjoy_ a lot of things I am _not_ payed for. I mean: do
the enjoying in your free time. And don't ask money for it.

So don't ask money for music, or movies, etc.?

The only tiny, subtle basis to your ridiculous and absurd whinning
would be to prove it is a self-contradicting theory, and you people
haven't shown anything even close to this, most probably because of
the simple reason you are not mathematicians and you do don't have,
usually, the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Oh yes, the usual blather .. But deep in your heart, you know better,
don't you?

We certainly know better than HdB about what he chooses to despise.

So...freak off and let mathematicians deal with mathematics and our
demons, fairies, dreams and fantasies. In the meantime you technicians
use what we develop for you.

I fear that about 98 percent of what you produce is not usable at all.

Not by the likes of HdB at any rate. But that is his loss, not ours.

Such pedestrianism limits him.

Han de Bruijn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another Inconvenient Truth
    ... Han de Bruijn wrote: ... but the universe _explodes_ near noon. ... And explosions are not zero. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: cantorian algebra
    ... Han de Bruijn wrote: ... prof. Andrew Wiles, you will notice an enormous amounts of ... Wiles proof has been vetted by mathematicians much more competent at ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
    ... >> Han de Bruijn wrote: ... the only problem is that mathematicians have produced ... The issue is not the general meaning of /random/ but the specific ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
    ... >> Han de Bruijn wrote: ... the only problem is that mathematicians have produced ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: a < b implies 2^a < 2^b
    ... cardinals IMO do not exist and hence aren't worth considering. ... a problem that simply isn't there in the whole universe? ... Han de Bruijn ...
    (sci.math)