Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

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 ]
Virgil

Posts: 9,012
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
<c333f4f2-df06-434d-8684-33e4553c11a9@j4g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 6 Feb., 23:10, Ralf Bader <ba...@nefkom.net> 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]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.