On Nov 3, 10:40 pm, Bill Taylor <w.tay...@math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > On Nov 3, 8:35 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > but I confess I just don't have that intuition at all. > And there're probably a lot like that as well! > Basically, our intuitions just aren't up to confidently > dealing with general set theory. (OC some claim theirs ARE.)
And I'm just wondering, does this "some claim theirs _are_" have anything to do with "cranks," as in WM, AP, and so on? For in one of the other threads, Jeffries also criticizes those ("cranks") who rely too much on one's intuition when dealing with set theory.
The problem, as J. Hughes alluded to in this thread:
> > (1) You seem to assume that there's something special about Moe that > > makes others claim his mathematical studies are religious. Have you > > ever considered that the issue is not Moe, but those others (very few > > of which refer explicitly to Moe, as far as I recall).
is that those who challenge intuitive results are often referred to as "religious" by those whose intuition they are challenging. If avoiding overly relying on intuition is what most mathematicians, then how can one ever convince those posters who do rely on their intuition not to do so as much?
Otherwise, that "religious" label -- to which many posters in this thread have already expressed opposition -- isn't going anyway anytime soon.