Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 03/20/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: origin of inertia"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 11:25:24 -0500
Lester Zick wrote:
>
> But not modern math.
All mathematics introduced since the Renaissance is modern mathematics.
It represents those mathematical developments which go beyond the
classical greek or hellensitic mathematics.
If you mean mathematics done in a formal style that goes back to the
time of Cantor (circa 1870) and subsequent developments. You can even
take it back to Galois who invented group theory in circa 1830 to prove
the unsolvability of quintic polynomials by root extraction.
You really have no knowlege of the history of mathematics, do you? You
are an intellectual vandal who draws graffite over ideas you cannot or
will not comprehend.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: origin of inertia"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|