The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology 203
Replies: 16   Last Post: Feb 7, 2013 8:06 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology 203
Posted: Feb 7, 2013 2:42 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
WM <> wrote:

> On 6 Feb., 23:10, Ralf Bader <> wrote:

> > > I don't know what Brouwer believed. I know what he wrote
> >
> > but you don't understand it.
> >

> > > : Cantor's 2nd
> > > number class does not exist.

> > Of course, when discrepancies between Brouwer and, ummmh, you show up then
> > Brouwer is wrong and you are right.

> I cannot see any difference between Brouwers sentence "Cantor's 2nd
> number class does not exist"

But between Brouwers existence of actually infinite sets and WM's
nonexistence of actually infinite sets there is an unbridgable gap, with
WM on the wrong end of it.

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.