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 § 224
Replies: 9   Last Post: Mar 31, 2013 1:08 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 2,720
Registered: 2/15/09
Re: Matheology § 224
Posted: Mar 30, 2013 2:23 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Mar 27, 8:06 am, "Ross A. Finlayson" <>
> On Mar 26, 10:06 pm, fom <> wrote:

> > On 3/26/2013 9:23 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > And every mathematician knows that what is verified in the applied
> > > makes a lot of sense.

> > This knowledge of which you speak may not actually involve
> > verification in any empirical sense.

> > Where mathematics is applied, there is a pretense of
> > measurement and calculation.  If a new method of analyzing
> > and manipulating empirical data arises, the general
> > interest turns to identifying the theoretical relationships
> > with the established mathematics.

> > In "Critique of Pure Reason" Kant makes some remarks
> > that may be paraphrased as:

> > That which is intelligible is made sensible.
> > That which is sensible is made intelligible.
> > In the Kantian framework, this symmetry expresses the
> > relationship between the theoretical coherence provided
> > by an intelligible logic and the a priori relations provided
> > by a sensible mathematics.

> > These words are being used in relation to a strict jargon
> > and are not to be taken flippantly as justifying either
> > side of the debate with WM.  They certainly *do not apply*
> > to his theory of willfully constructed monotonic inclusive
> > crayon marks. I just wanted to give you a slightly different
> > view of what you had been expressing for your own
> > consideration.

> The character of the reals (as it were, in abstract algebra character
> has a meaning) and the nature of the continuous and discrete and the
> bounary or lack thereof between continuous and discrete is of direct
> relevance to continuum analysis, which has direct relevance to physics
> and processes in reality.  The value of mathematics about the
> continuous and discrete is more than the aesthetic or knowledge-
> driven, it is of import to utilitarian needs.
> Then, where the character of the reals for real analysis is that
> countable additivity is used to extract results basically of delta-
> epsilonics (there exists e < d for any finite d), when there has been
> developed this mathematical notion of uncountability, users of
> mathematics look to it to offer methods for the improvement and
> general development of physics and processes in reality.  And, they
> have looked long and hard, and _not found uses of uncountability as
> mathematics that as falsifiable in experiment support the scientific
> method_.
> Of course this in itself doesn't mean uncountability isn't mathematics
> or is an inconsistent mathematics (for what axioms define, regardless
> their truth).  However, where the axioms of mathematics are the
> foundation for the axioms of physics, but one of their primary
> consequences has no import to the foundation for physics as verifiable
> scientifically,  those axioms of mathematics aren't so justified as
> axioms of physics (not that they're shown un-justified without an
> alternative scientific theory, but they're _not_ shown justified.)
> Then, where there are simple counterexamples, in real analysis, to
> uncountability, here as EF and the sweep principle as non-anti-
> diagonalizable and the rationals as dense as least discrete in the
> continuous, then not only should the conscientious mathematician
> deliberate as to how and why that is so, but the conscientious
> physicist can design experiment about it, for consistent mathematics
> with the infinite, which is of primary concern to cosmologists, for
> whom modern mathematics has yet to offer a foundation, in theory.
> So, fom, a conscientious logician should be a formalist 24/7/365 - a
> constant formalist - and formality in physics is of the scientific
> method.  That's not to say intuition doesn't have a place in
> formality, in fact the opposite:  from the universe of mathematical
> possibilities (and possibilities of mathematics), the formalist is the
> rigorist.

Two paths are distinct at least one node, but there are only countably
many nodes.

Any node is a copy of the root of the tree, for the tree of all
infinite sequences or the tree of rational sequences (those ending
with a finite repeating pattern). Any node in the tree of all
infinite sequences exists in the tree of rational sequences, and there
are countably many nodes.

And, the breadth-first sweep of the tree doesn't see uncountability
(of the nodes, of the tree) thus result.

While countable the rationals are still surely larger in almost all
regards than the naturals. Basically that the rationals are countable
is an example of that: the second order, reduces to first order, for
any N x N <-> N.

Well I'd wonder more if the uncountable was applied anywhere: please
details applications of the uncountable so it would be more clear it
doesn't just put off more work in the foundations as concrete.

Then, what would be remarkable, and compelling, for the foundations of
real analysis, is to better work up what is where: the continuous of
the continuum, and the discrete of its individua: meet and part, not
just that they don't.

Because, modern mathematics is yet rather mute on that, and the
continuum is additively countable: for what it's worth.


Ross Finlayson

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.