On 01/04/2013 19:50, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > david petry <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > >> On Monday, April 1, 2013 5:01:04 AM UTC-7, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >> >>> david petry <email@example.com> writes: >> >>>> Applied mathematicians know they have to produce something that is >>>> of use to the scientists, which does imply that they are taking >>>> falsifiability into consideration. >> >> >>> I still don't understand. >> >> That doesn't surprise me. >> >> >>> Can you give an example of some piece of mathematics that an applied >>> mathematician would choose to avoid, because it's not "falsifiable"? >> >> Cantorian set theory. > > Aside from the fact that applied problems don't tend to require > infinite sets, what is your evidence that applied mathematicians avoid > Cantorian set theory because is allegedly unfalsifiable?
Lest anyone assume that Petry actually knows what he's talking about, it's worth mentioning that many applied mathematicians do, in fact, make liberal use of Cantorian set theory.