Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: John Schutkeker on 30 Aug 2006 15:14 Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote in news:62kbf21u4qbprpujl413gv2j0gaqahlgl3(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:03:17 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" > <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > >>John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: >> >>> Jeremy Boden <jeremy(a)jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in >>> news:1156865725.8346.5.camel(a)localhost.localdomain: >>> >>>> Unfortunately mathematics is not an experimental science. >>> >>> I disagree. >> >>Fair enough. >> >>*Fortunately* mathematics is not an experimental science. > > And yet unfortunately mathematical axioms are empirically established. QED.
From: Virgil on 30 Aug 2006 15:38 In article <c0kbf2d68q0iembtij08v9763k92e59fmt(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:10:10 +0200, Han de Bruijn > <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: > > >Lester Zick wrote: > > > >> Actually an interesting prespective. Certainly mathematical axioms if > >> not theorems are empirically established. > > > >Axioms are implicit definitions. Axioms are not at all definitions, nor are definitions axioms. Axioms are declarative, definitions imperative. > > Which are empirically established and not demonstrated. Lets see you *empirically establish* the axiom of infinity as given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_Infinity Some of the other axioms/axiom_schemas of ZF are equally impossible to establish empirically.
From: Virgil on 30 Aug 2006 15:39 In article <62kbf21u4qbprpujl413gv2j0gaqahlgl3(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:03:17 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" > <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > >John Schutkeker <jschutkeker(a)sbcglobal.net.nospam> writes: > > > >> Jeremy Boden <jeremy(a)jboden.demon.co.uk> wrote in > >> news:1156865725.8346.5.camel(a)localhost.localdomain: > >> > >>> Unfortunately mathematics is not an experimental science. > >> > >> I disagree. > > > >Fair enough. > > > >*Fortunately* mathematics is not an experimental science. > > And yet unfortunately mathematical axioms are empirically established. Let's see Zick empirically establish the axiom of infinity, then.
From: Virgil on 30 Aug 2006 15:43 In article <r7kbf2tlc70iqjm2rp4ktprl1o3uui79jf(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >Hello Crackpot. > > Crackpot=disagreer. Quite mathematical. Crackpots are those who disagree not only without supporting evidence but despite contrary evidence. Like Zick.
From: Virgil on 30 Aug 2006 15:45
In article <hakbf2d6souukukddroosgeuabjaghhuea(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On 30 Aug 2006 05:01:52 -0700, schoenfeld.one(a)gmail.com wrote: > > >Falsifiability does not _need_ to apply in mathematics. In math, > >statements can be true without their being a proof of it being true. > >Likewise, they can be false. > > Except apparently for definitions. Definitions are imperatives. One may refuse to obey an imperative, but it is nonsense to claim one false. |