An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: Han de Bruijn on 28 Sep 2006 03:39 Virgil wrote: > In article <c43c$451a2703$82a1e228$4034(a)news1.tudelft.nl>, > Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: > >>Virgil wrote: >> >>>In article <6e5c2$4518da26$82a1e228$6365(a)news1.tudelft.nl>, >>> Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote: >>> >>>>Tony Orlow wrote: >>>> >>>>>Math=Science? >>>> >>>>Definitely, yes! >>> >>>Only if science is a subset of mathematics. >> >>Science is not a subset of mathematics. Neither is mathematics a subset >>of science nowadays. If 1 = yes and 0 = no : >> >>mathematics | science | result >>------------------------------ >> 0 0 having a chat >> 0 1 soft sciences >> 1 0 nonsense maths >> 1 1 exact sciences > > Correction: > mathematics | science | result > ---------------------------------------------- > 0 0 having a chat > 0 1 nonsense sciences > 1 0 not yet applied maths > 1 1 exact sciences OK. We are getting somewhere. So you believe that science without maths is nonsense ? And you believe that forms of mathematics which are taken out of the big blue sky nevertheless are applicable, in principle? This is the same kind of stand as saying that the pope is infallible because he is the pope. Definitely metaphysical. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 28 Sep 2006 03:49 Virgil wrote: > In article <451a8f41(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>For purposes of measure on the finite scale, infinitesimals can be >>considered nilpotent. That's all. Do you disagree? > > I disagree that scale changes can convert between zero and non-zero. > > There are approximation methods is which products of small quantities > are regarded as negligible in comparison to the quantities themselves, > but they are always just approximations. Crucial question: are those "approximation methods" part of mathematics? I'll take Yes or No as a sufficient answer. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 28 Sep 2006 03:52 Tony Orlow wrote: > Psychology (and I've studied it a bit) is only a science to the extent > that it employs analysis. Most cognitive science uses at least > statistics in order to establish any kind of certainty in its findings. > I don't consider Freudian Analysis to be science. Do you? Why not? Does Freudian Analysis lead to a technology in a medical sense: does it help to cure people from a mental disease? If the answer is yes, then IMHO Freudian Analysis may be considered as a science. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 28 Sep 2006 04:01 Randy Poe wrote about the Balls in a Vase problem: > Tony Orlow wrote: > >>So, it definitely empties...... > > Yes. >> >>Wow, that's deep. Math is cool. > > Cool? Yes. > > Deep? I dunno. As I said, this is reasoning that I didn't > have a major struggle with at the age of about 10. And, at that time, Randy didn't have a major struggle with Santa Claus as well. Han de Bruijn
From: Han de Bruijn on 28 Sep 2006 04:06
Virgil wrote: > In article <451ad7e9(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >> >>Psychology (and I've studied it a bit) is only a science to the extent >>that it employs analysis. > > That depends on your definition of 'a science'. There is nothing in my > definition of 'a science' that requires mathematics (or that bars it > either). How is this consistent with the second row in the following table, which is from one of your previous posts in the same thread: > mathematics | science | result > ---------------------------------------------- > 0 0 having a chat > 0 1 nonsense sciences ( !! ) > 1 0 not yet applied maths > 1 1 exact sciences Han de Bruijn |