Gene Ward Smith wrote: > Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > >>The view that mathematics should try to constrain itself to physical >>reality is, in my opinion, not a crackpot position. > > > It's a meaningless position unless you can give "confine itself to > physical reality" in connection to a subject which is not *about* > physical reality a meaning.
I disagree, but while I would otherwise be glad to continue this interesting discussion...
> Stephen, I suggest you confine yourself to topics you know something > about, and cease spouting ignorant horseshit.
...it simply isn't worth this kind of abuse. If you disagree with me that's fine, but do so in a civilized manner.
> A very famous > incident--so famous it makes it dead obvious you don't know what the > hell you are talking about--is Gelfand's proof of Wiener's theorem > using Banach algebras.
I do know what I am talking about. I have written papers in Banach spaces and Banach algebras. For the purposes of this discussion (which is not about the hard facts of math) these two fields are essentially different.
Frankly I don't mind you thinking I am wrong, and engaging in a civilized discussion about how I am wrong, but don't throw abuse at me like this.
This is a discussion about the philosophy of math. Fankly I don't see this discussion of worthy of anything more than having fun, and if it ceases to be fun I don't want to be part of it.