Date: Apr 20, 2013 5:51 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology § 256

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.
--