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: Recommended reading for WM Mueckenheim and others
Replies: 9   Last Post: Apr 16, 2013 12:37 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Recommended reading for WM Mueckenheim and others
Posted: Apr 8, 2013 12:05 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 4/7/2013 8:20 PM, david petry wrote:
> The appendix to E. T. Jaynes' book "Probability Theory: The Logic Of Science" contains a lot of material relevant to Mueckenheim's discussion of infinity. I suspect that WM has already read this.
> Here's a quote:
> "But the messages that Kronecker did communicate contained some very important truth; in particular he complained that much of set theory was fantasy because it was not algorithmic (that is, it contained no rule by which one could decide, in a nite number of operations, whether a given element did or did not belong to a given set). Today, with our computer mentalities, this seems such an obvious platitude that it is hard to imagine anyone ignoring it, much less denying
> it; yet that is just what happened. We think that, had mathematicians paid more attention to this warning of Kronecker, mathematics might be in a more healthy state today."

It was a surprise to see a call for
civility in the paper at your link.

I did not spend much time looking
at the "relevant" sections. But,
then, I am not so greatly interested in
delineating good math from bad math.
I am sure the definitions are reasonable
for the purposes for which they are

Some of the revisited historical account
was good. Because so much presentation
attempts to be formal, often without
motivation, the history of the subject
is obscured and sometimes skewed with
later retellings.

WM has been asked to provide reasonable
definitions of his own or to use standard
terms according to standard usage.

None of it has been forthcoming.

Notice how much of the material in your
link is presented in reasonable fashion.

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.