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 § 295
Replies: 24   Last Post: Jun 30, 2013 3:32 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 18,076
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 295
Posted: Jun 27, 2013 6:08 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Thursday, 27 June 2013 11:52:27 UTC+2, fom wrote:

> It is one thing to speak of "strokes-as-numerals"

So did Cantor: "Da aus jedem einzelnen Elemente m, wenn man von seiner Beschaffenheit absieht, eine "Eins" wird, so ist die Kardinalzahl M selbst eine bestimmte aus lauter Einsen zusammengesetzte Menge"
(The cardinal is a set constituted of ones.)

> and mimic arguments that are in the literature.

That's your main occupation.

> It is a different thing to work without axioms or logic and mangle different subjects senselessly.

If you worked with logic and axioms, you could conclude from A > 1 (which has been defined by set theory) on 1/A < 1. You could even prove it.

Of course matheologians try to escape the comparison of matheology with mathematics. But aleph_0 > 1 has been put! That cannot be denied. Withdraw it, and everybody can see that matheology is independent of mathematics and vice versa. Then you may play your meaningsless games without being disturbed by mathematicians.

Regards, WM

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.