"Gene Ward Smith" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > Gerry Myerson wrote: > >> I'm dismayed by the level of vituperation in some of the posts in >> this thread. > > Norm starts out his paper, which I didn't read because the beginning > was so extremely unpromising, in what seems to me to be a very > insulting way. If he has ideas he wants to be taken seriously I suggest > he remove the sneers directed at set theorists, who apparently are > beneath contempt, and wild remarks about physics and the like. Present > a reasoned argument in a reasonable way and people are likely to react > more positively, and less likely to conclude that you are an idiot and > simply quit reading. > >> He's adopting a finitistic, or >> constructivist, or computational view of mathematics. > > He's also spitting on people who don't. I think it is terribly arrogant > to dismiss people like > Shelah or Woodin with such utter contempt like this, and I didn't see > any signs, as far as I had gotten, that he even knows anything about > modern set theory. Does he?
I think he is all too familiar with modern set theorists. Set theorists have written the book on how to treat others with contempt.
Most branches of mathematics will accept any reasonable proof. Set theorists demand proofs in set theory. This is like the Catholic Church requiring Mass be given in Latin. It is a method of guaranteeing only the priests (the true believers) know the Church's doctrines. It is designed to prevent skeptics (non-believers) from being able to question Church doctrine, since you need to know a dead language to have any idea what that doctrine is.
Imagine if Einstein had been told he had to prove relativity in Newtonian physics before anyone would consider his ideas.