|
|
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a non-mathematician
Posted:
Jan 30, 2013 3:58 PM
|
|
W. Dale Hall wrote:
> 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.
Oops. Zeilberger. My bad.
|
|
