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 § 210
Replies: 1   Last Post: Feb 11, 2013 4:44 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
Alan Smaill

Posts: 748
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 210
Posted: Feb 11, 2013 4:44 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:

> On 8 Feb., 19:41, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>

>> You miss the point as ever --  you are suggesting that
>> intuitionists were bullied into making a claim that Hilbert et al
>> did *not* accept, viz:

>
> They were forced to assert that subcountability in constructivism is
> not in contradiction with uncountability in matheology.


Which makes no sense in classical mathematics.

Furthermore, that some subcountable sets cannot be effectively
enumerated (in constructive terms, are not countable) is provable
constructively. You yourself have accepted that, for example,
there is no (finitely describable) set containing all
(finitely describable) reals, ie that it is subcountable, but not
a set (your way of putting it).

> And that
> cannot be expected from a healthy mind other than by torture or ban
> from profession.


That Brouwer stuck to his position, on this point as well as others,
simply shows that he could follow through the logic of his own
underlying principles.

This ability is not universal, it appears.


> Regards, WM

--
Alan Smaill



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.