Date: Sep 24, 2017 8:19 AM
Author: Peter Percival
Subject: Re: 0 = 1
Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 12:41:43 PM UTC-4, FredJeffries
>> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 9:10:59 AM UTC-7, Dan
>> Christensen laid down the law:
>>> If you cannot formally define these concepts of yours purely in
>>> terms of the symbols of logic and set theory (or some
>>> equivalent), it isn't mathematics.
>> That's ridiculous. You have just chauvinistically declared the
>> mathematics of thousands of years and hundreds of cultures to be
>> "n[o]t mathematics"; not to mention all of the experimental and
>> not-yet-formalized current research; not to mention all of the
>> checkbook balancing done by millions of people who never saw a
>> "symbol of logic" in their lives.
> Ordinary arithmetic (2+2=4, etc.) was formalized some time ago. So
> too has algebra, calculus, differential equations, etc. As for
Where have differential equations (a hell of a big subject!) been
> "experimental" research, it will always be just a preliminary work
> until it can be axiomatized.
... in the sense of axiomatized? Indeed, what would it mean "to
formalize" differential equations? That an equation and some axioms are
put into a box, shaken well, and out pop the solutions?
> I really have to admire those have staked their careers on such
> speculative ventures, hacking their way through tractless
> mathematical jungles, but failure is real possibility. But I guess it
> wouldn't be very exciting otherwise!
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com Visit my
> Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan