An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: Han de Bruijn on 28 Sep 2006 03:07 Randy Poe wrote, about the Balls in a Vase problem: > It definitely empties, since every ball you put in is > later taken out. And _that_ individual calls himself a physicist? Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 28 Sep 2006 03:11 Tony Orlow wrote: > In math, it's a whole other world, but it's related to science. They > both have to be consistent. Math creates science, and science guides > math. It's like yin yang, Man. :) It's the other way around as well: science creates math, and math guides science. Han de Bruijn
From: Virgil on 28 Sep 2006 03:15 In article <d12a9$451b74ad$82a1e228$6053(a)news1.tudelft.nl>, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: > Randy Poe wrote, about the Balls in a Vase problem: > > > It definitely empties, since every ball you put in is > > later taken out. > > And _that_ individual calls himself a physicist? > > Han de Bruijn Does Han claim that there is any ball put in that is not taken out?
From: Virgil on 28 Sep 2006 03:16 In article <40af7$451b758f$82a1e228$6630(a)news1.tudelft.nl>, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: > Tony Orlow wrote: > > > In math, it's a whole other world, but it's related to science. They > > both have to be consistent. Math creates science, and science guides > > math. It's like yin yang, Man. :) > > It's the other way around as well: science creates math, and math guides > science. > Only in the minds of scientists, who are prejudiced in favor of themselves.
From: Han de Bruijn on 28 Sep 2006 03:25
Tony Orlow wrote: > MoeBlee wrote: > >> Tony Orlow wrote: >> >>> Constructivism and Axiomatism are two sides of a coin. They can be >>> reconciled in larger framework, I think. >> >> I don't know what your definition of 'axiomatism' is, but there are >> axiomatic systems for constructive mathematics. > > I dunno. I was responding to Han's comment. I think he means > constructive concepts vs. axiomatic declarations. It's a priorities issue. Do axioms have to dictate what constructivism should be like? Should constructivism be tailored to the objectives of axiomatics? I think not. Han de Bruijn |