Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Matheology § 256
Replies: 4   Last Post: Apr 22, 2013 5:12 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology § 256
Posted: Apr 20, 2013 5:51 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
<8c1f57a1-3a1a-4287-9ae6-f4ba045ec332@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> Matheology § 256
>
> In his dissertation of 1907, Brouwer had actually explained how he
> could accept some of Cantor’s ideas, including his transfinite numbers
> omega, omega+1, … up to a certain point (as long as they are
> denumerable and in a certain sense constructible {{i.e., given by a
> finite formula or rule}}) but not the further concepts of ?a totality
> of all such denumerable numbers.?[...]. And it? was not the set-
> theoretic paradoxes that caused his reaction. As he remarked in 1923,
> ?an incorrect theory, even if it cannot be checked by any
> contradiction that would refute it, is none the?less incorrect, just
> as a criminal policy is none the less criminal even if it cannot be
> checked by any? court that would curb it.


What constitutes a criminal act is what the currently encoded laws
governing the location of that act define to be criminal act.

So that Brouwer seems to visualize some sort of law above enacted law.

That is more of the nature of religion than of mathematics.
--





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.