Re: Very basic mistakes
- From: "Salviati" <eckard.blumschein@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 14:12:40 +0200
You wrote:
So maybe he calls himself a mathematician (or maybe not), but his
website indicates an interest in physics rather than mathematics,
He is a moderator of sci.physics.foundations, and mathematics is a most
important foundation of physics. If there are basic mistakes in mathematics
then they may affect physics.
Aha! Blumshein ... Blumscheit ... Eckhard... Blumshien's... !!!!
Why do you intend to make mathematics esoteric?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
?
Something is esoteric if it is only understood by a small number
of people who have special knowledge of it.
I see it demonstrating that physics depends on possibly questionable
mathematics, not the other way round. Do finitism and deductionism
belong to physics? Didn't misuse of unscrupulously fabricated axioms
spread from mathematics to physics?
Again you can't help yourself. You are talking about physics again.
But the answer to your rhetorical question is no. I neither know
nor care whether physicists use (or misuse) "unscrupulously fabricated
axioms" but since mathematicians do not,
Are you familiar with the jungle of ZF, ZFC, NF, NBG, ... ?
Do you know why mathematics suddenly demanded the pointless
quarrel about for instance AC?
the use can't have "spread" from mathematics.
Hilbert intended to also create an axiomatic physics and metaphysics.
Aleph_2 is not physical nonsense but mathematical one.
What aleph_2 actually is, is the second uncountable cardinal.
While aleph_0 and aleph_1 can be interpreted as the infiniteness
of the natural numbers, and the fiction of perfect infinity, respectively,
any aleph in excess is a phantasmagoria without any reasonable
application since more than a hundred years. Cantor's interpretation
of the second diagonal argument is based on assumed comparability.
Salviati already understood that for infinite quantities the relations
equal, larger or smaller do not apply. Therefore the idea of cardinality
lacks any tangible basis.
basis.
Set theory lacks any tangible basis.
I conjecture that what you mean by tangible is physical,
No. I mean logical. Fraenkel in 1923 admitted that there is a
so called 4th logical possibility besides =, >, and <:
uncomparable.
I add: Even the rational number 4 is incomparabel with the
real number 4.
Berkeley was not so far from the truth when he asked:
"May we not call them the ghost of departed quantities?"
A rational number and a (genuine) real number are
within quite different categories.
that is subordinate to the interests of physicists.
If so then it is all to the good that mathematics has no
such basis!
Application and comprehensive selfconsistency are valuable
touchstones for mathematics.
Dedekind admitted that he did not have any evidence for his guess
that the entity of all rational numbers can be split into larger and
smaller ones wrt his cut.
Reference?
Stertigkeit und irrationale Zahlen, Vieweg, Braunschweig (1872).
For instance, Buridan's donkey has primarily to do with poorly understood
logical fundamentals rather than with physics.
Buridan's ass has nothing to do with mathematics.
Perhaps you are too ignorant.
By the way, if you must descend to "argument by name-dropping"
you might at least have the decency to spell the name of your
uncritically admired hero correctly.
I do not understand this hint. I do not uncritically admire Galileo
Galilei.
I decided to borrow his synonym Salviati because I would like to stress
that his ultimate conclusion is fully convincing to me and not made
out-dated by Cantor.
Not because all sci.math readers had worked out what an arrogant,
conceited, self-satisfied, ineducable ignoramus "Eckard Blumschein"
is?
If you are unable to reply factually, I am sorry....
Once again: Do you understand why v. Neumann in 1935
did no longer believe in Hilbert space? His famous book
was published just a few years earlier in 1932.
The reason for v. Neumann to abandon his belief was most likely
a paper by EPR.
You will certainly agree that Hilbert space is pure mathematics.
Hilbert space is a topic in mathematics, and a very important
and fertile contribution. But why is it of interest whether or
not one particular mathematician may (or may not) have decided
not to "believe" in it?
He was not just one mathematician. It was the same Janos, alias
Johann alias John v. Neumann who was perhaps the most intelligent
pupil of Hilbert and who introduced Hilbert space.
He wrote the book Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik,
Springer, Berlin 1932.
Again, as with all your anti-mathematical
arguments, you do not isolate any contradiction in the mathematics
Pointing to a putative very basic mistake is not anti-mathematical.
I do not intend to destroy anything but what might be an illusion for
millenia. Was the so called fundamental crisis of mathematics actually
settled when Hilbert, Fraenkel, and Zermelo managed to ban the
contradiction between countable and uncountable out of the very
axioms into their interpretation between the lines? In the end,
application decides. Let's wait for the outcome of the search for
Higgs bosons and the promised performance of quantum computers?
Again, do you know why v. Neumann did no longer believe in his own
creation Hilbert space?
It has to do with completeness as introduced by Dedekind.
Salviati
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Blumshein's very basic mistakes
- From: victor_meldrew_666
- Blumshein's very basic mistakes
- References:
- Blumschien's very basic mistakes
- From: victor_meldrew_666
- Blumschien's very basic mistakes
- Prev by Date: orbits of conjugation in the general linear group
- Next by Date: Re: A new (?) construction of R
- Previous by thread: Blumschien's very basic mistakes
- Next by thread: Blumshein's very basic mistakes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
