Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
fom
Posts:
1,026
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 12:31 AM
|
|
On 3/17/2013 8:45 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <DPWdncbt4PfeGN_MnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com>, on 03/14/2013
> at 09:19 PM, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> said:
>
>> Among all of the possible statement concerning a philosophy of
>> mathematics that you could have chosen, the one you did is exactly
>> the negation of my philosophy.
>
> See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair>.
>
Thank you.
I did post an open apology to the professionals
on this site in view of my other posts.
news://news.giganews.com:119/ZfKdnQxJds3UldzMnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@giganews.com
If you read through it you will find that
I have identified "mathematics that does
not necessarily obey distributive laws"
as being central to that with which I have
been struggling.
Among the places where that occurs, is in
the "language equivalence" of automata
with respect to regular sets of accepting
strings formed from concatenations. It is
under that notion of equivalence where
distributive laws can equate deterministic
and non-deterministic machines.
I suspect, in part, that that accounts
for why the geometries I have been using
quickly led to geometries of interest
to the applied fields.
Now that I am able to fit my ideas into
traditional frameworks, you will see
no more claims along those lines.
|
|
|
|
