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:
Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Replies:
77
Last Post:
Mar 19, 2013 11:02 PM
|
 |
|
fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 15, 2013 8:27 PM
|
|
On 3/15/2013 6:28 PM, david petry wrote:
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 6:18:08 AM UTC-7, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> I assumed that this relationship between "falsifiability" and
>> mathematics allowed one to distinguish non-mathematical claims from
>> mathematical claims. If not, what role does falsifiability play? In
>> science, it distinguishes scientific hypotheses from non-scientific.
>
> Yes, exactly, I'm suggesting it would be reasonable to have
> falsifiability play the same role in mathematics that it plays
> in science. Why do I need to keep repeating that for you?
>
For all of us.
One problem is that you have not expressed
that in a way which is applicable to the
context of performing mathematics -- of
actually making assertions involving
mathematical entities such as numbers
and proving the assertions made.
That is, in part, what Jesse is asking
of you. And, he is asking that you explain
to the point where he can implement it
on a particular problem on his own.
I left you an example of how Markov managed
it in another post.
It is not enough to say that something
should be different from how it is. One
must offer a working method that can
replace the method being rejected through
criticism.
|
|
|
|
