🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.philosophy.tech
Article #734

Re: Numbers and sets

#734
From: Randall Holmes
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:12
56 lines
3097 bytes
In article <BzzHDI.2Bv@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.155555.21505@guinness.idbsu.edu>, holmes@opal.idbsu.edu 
>(Randall Holmes) writes:
>>In article <Bzsrvt.167@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>>>    Is there a relationship between sets and Plato's Forms?
>
>Plato's Forms were ideal exemplars of
>>mundane objects; sets do not have this character (the set of all
>>natural numbers is not a perfect natural number).  
>
>    Perhaps I should have asked about Kantian, subjective forms.

Do you actually read other people's postings, or do you just look for
key words and consult Rand to find out what we are supposed to be
saying?  You should know very well that I do not consider formal
objects to be subjective in any way, shape or form.

 I am starting 
>"Plato, Kant and Aristotle in Math" by Glenn Marcus (2nd Renaissance Books,
>1991, audio) and should have some wisdom on math soon.

You won't get wisdom on math by reading any of those gentlemen.  Try
Bertrand Russell (OK, Mikhail, I won't ennoble him anachronistically).
I'd agree with you about his politics, but he's good on math _and_ a
good writer.  There are other people to read, of course.

>    Marcus says scientists (excepting computer scientists w/info theory) use
>only pre-20th century math and quotes a leading mathematician on the 
>impracticality of math. Comments?

This is not true for scientists in general, and the computer
scientists in particular are using a lot more 20th century math than
information theory; the theory of types, for example, is applied in
CS.


>================================================================================
>	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
>you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
>tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."

Since the universe (as opposed to its loal inhabitants) is already
rational, you should already be able to do this, no?  (At least, if
you have a strong stomach).

>                                                              AYN RAND
>================================================================================
>Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASS.EDU>
>================================================================================


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1992Dec30.181214.2580@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes
References: <Bzsrvt.167@umassd.edu> <1992Dec28.155555.21505@guinness.idbsu.edu> <BzzHDI.2Bv@umassd.edu>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Numbers and sets
Message-ID: <1992Dec30.181214.2580@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Sender: usenet@guinness.idbsu.edu (Usenet News mail)
Nntp-Posting-Host: opal
Organization: Boise State University
References: <Bzsrvt.167@umassd.edu> <1992Dec28.155555.21505@guinness.idbsu.edu> <BzzHDI.2Bv@umassd.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:12:14 GMT
Lines: 56