|
|
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a non-mathematician
Posted:
Jan 30, 2013 3:57 PM
|
|
Virgil wrote:
> In article <264ae927-99f6-45a4-9e52-48cf1ce3aed0@googlegroups.com>,
> david petry <david_lawrence_petry@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 5:26:38 PM UTC-8, W. Dale Hall wrote:
>>> david petry wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Doron Zeilberger wrote the following in an opinion piece on his website:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> "Read Wolfgang Mueckenheim's fascinating book ! I especially like the
>>>> bottom
>>>
>>> > of page 112 and the top of page 113, that prove, once and for all,
>>>
>>> that (at least)
>>>
>>>> the actual infinity is pure nonsense."
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion68.html
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I'd be interested in seeing an English translation of the bottom of page
>>>> 112 and the top of page 113.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I suppose you missed the statement that immediately followed that:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Clarification added Aug. 25, 2011: My endorsement of Wolfgang
>>>
>>> Mueckenheim's wonderful book is purely philosophical. I have no
>>>
>>> expertise, or interest, in checking any possible technical
>>>
>>> claims that he may have made.
>>
>>
>> Of course I did not miss that. Is that extremely important?
>
> It means that the person being convinced by WM's argument is essentially
> totally ignorant of both mathematics and logic, so has no idea of the
> logical and mathematical consequences of assuming no actual
> infiniteness.
>
I wouldn't take that reading, given the author (Doron Zeilberg).
Instead, I'd take his (DZ's) opinion to be based on other than
mathematical grounds. As I understand WM's intent, it is precisely
mathematical content that should govern acceptance of his (WM's)
thesis. Zeilberg's appraisal does precisely none of that.
|
|
