>>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.