Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Replies: 3   Last Post: Nov 25, 2012 9:09 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Jesse F. Hughes

Posts: 9,776
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted: Nov 25, 2012 4:56 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> writes:

> On Nov 25, 12:53 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <8e72f34b-4acb-4e8d-9797-f3b217e4e...@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
>> small-and-particle-like things have some behaviors that are wave-like.
>> 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

Jesse F. Hughes
Playin' dismal hollers for abysmal dollars,
Those were the days, best I can recall.
-- Austin Lounge Lizards, "Rocky Byways"

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum 1994-2015. All Rights Reserved.