Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 25, 2012 4:56 PM


"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> writes:
> On Nov 25, 12:53 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: >> In article >> <8e72f34b4acb4e8d9797f3b217e4e...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>, >> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > So, we know from modern particle physics that the particle, is both >> > particle, and wave. >> >> What we do know is that those things we sometimes regard as being >> smallandparticlelike things have some behaviors that are wavelike. >> >> What those "things"REALLY are, we do not know. >> >> And most of the time, don't much care, as long as our descriptions of >> how we expect them to behave match our observations of how they do >> behave! >>  > > > Well that's simple, you're not a conscientious mathematician, who > cares. > > Heh, you describe exactly the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.
Let's add that fallacy to the enormous list of things Russell doesn't understand.
 Jesse F. Hughes Playin' dismal hollers for abysmal dollars, Those were the days, best I can recall.  Austin Lounge Lizards, "Rocky Byways"



