In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, david petry <email@example.com> wrote:
> I admit that I don't understand WM's technical claims. However, when I see > you and other mathematicians fail to comprehend, or at least fail to respond > coherently to, very simple, clear and straightforward informal arguments, it > doesn't inspire confidence in me that you are qualified to judge whether WM's > technical claims are valid. > > Here is a simple, clear and straightforward informal argument, which I > believe Mueckenheim would endorse, that I have never seen a Cantorian > mathematician respond to in a coherent way: > > It is eminently reasonable to believe that the purpose of mathematics is to > provide a rigorous and practically useful conceptual framework for reasoning > quantitatively about real world phenomena.
There are many mathematicians of note, such as G.H. Hardy, who take quite a different view.