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