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.independent

Topic: Matheology § 208
Replies: 5   Last Post: Feb 3, 2013 4:58 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 208
Posted: Feb 3, 2013 4:58 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 2/3/2013 3:29 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article
> <a5a38f23-8607-4d13-bac5-cf74ce3ab7d6@9g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
> WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>

>> Matheology § 208
>>
>> In Consistency in Mathematics (1929), Weyl characterized the
>> mathematical method as
>>
>> the a priori construction of the possible in opposition to the a
>> posteriori description of what is actually given. {{Above all,
>> mathematics has to be consistent. And there is only one criterion for
>> consistency: The "model" of reality.}}
>>
>> The problem of identifying the limits on constructing ³the possible²
>> in this sense occupied Weyl a great deal. He was particularly
>> concerned with the concept of the mathematical infinite, which he
>> believed to elude ³construction² in the naive set-theoretical sense.
>> Again to quote a passage from Das Kontinuum:
>>
>> No one can describe an infinite set other than by indicating
>> properties characteristic of the elements of the set.

>
> That is effectively true for all but "small" sets.
>
> One rarely sees sets of 100 or more members that lists all members
> individually. And the difficulty in actually listing increases with the
> size of the set to become effectively impossible well before actual
> infiniteness.


And, I have published papers on my bookshelf in which mathematicians
consider that limitation just as seriously as others have considered
infinity to be a monolithic epistemic limitation.

For you, the received paradigm seems easily accepted, although I
do not think you have fully considered it. That is perfectly
fine. You certainly do have a talent when you are not being
quite so argumentative. Being somewhat slow, I have enjoyed
many of your examples.

















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.