|
|
Re: another boring critisism of Cantor's Theorem
Posted:
Apr 2, 2004 12:43 AM
|
|
Herman Jurjus wrote:
>>Do not worry just because I am only one engineer who ventures telling
>>the huge crowd of professional mathematicians why Buridan's donkey is a
>>symbol of an old mistake.
>
>
> I have the impression that your criticism of Cantor
> is not the same as that of the average sci.math Cantor-
> criticist. Same for David Petry.
>
> Did anyone already mention Johannes Hjelmslev?
> In the first decades of the 20th century, he tried
> to develop 'practical geometry'. He tried to define
> alternative models for the continuum, in which
> there were no idealized points, only rough spots.
> (And, btw, he was an engineer too. Well, almost.
> He taught mathematics to engineers. No wonder
> that mathematicians didn't listen. In those days...)
>
> As far as geometry is concerned, one could say that
> the 'Cantorian perversion' started already with Euclid,
> who considered the idealized points and lines 'real' and
> the real, both-feet-on-the-ground, everyday-life points
> and lines 'uninteresting, imperfect and impure
> approximations'. Literally a 'perversion', one might say.
Thank you very much for these hints. Unfortunately, I am not in position
to reach those who would be able to draw the due general consequences.
I will merely benefit myself from distrust against Cantor's paradise.
Cheers,
Eckard
|
|
