Setting the record straight because I can't in good conscience have such nonsense sitting in public not refuted.
You haven't pointed to an instance of an inconsistency in Mathematics. Which, I'll point out, was what I explicitly asked for. Basically, you're referencing a choice in Mathematics that we have, that we can go for either consistent OR complete. And you seem to be saying that Mathematics is neither? You don't seem to understand the issues involved and/or have incomplete knowledge/understanding of the history of Mathematics. "What is flabbergasting me" is that you haven't a clue and/or lack the attention to detail to answer questions that were explicitly asked. Point of fact, Mathematics has been proven to have the option to be either consistent OR complete. From what I've learned, we've chosen to be consistent. Which, IMO, was a very very wise decision. If you don't agree, point to a specific instance of an inconsistency in modern Mathematics. Eliah Kagan wrote: """ Tony Abernethy's example of non-Euclidean geometries being inconsistent with Euclidean geometry is a good one. """ This is so very wrong it isn't even funny. You deserve to be ridiculed publicly into oblivion for making such nonsensical statements. I mean seriously, Euclidean geometry assumes a perfectly flat plain whereas non-Eucliden geometry does not. Do you think they'll go in different directions? Do you think that it is even remotely reasonable to compare the conclusions after such a divergence without considering limiting cases? Though a couple of the statements you make after the above statement are reasonable, you take it in a direction and make conclusions that aren't (meaningless?!?!?). This mixture of reasonable with unreasonable, including such logic makes such statements erroneously compelling, which is very dangerous for those learning this stuff for the first time. Please stay away from making any statements on the foundations of Mathematics in the future as you seem to be at least partially ill equipped to speak on this topic. In other words, you have enough knowledge and speak well enough to convince students/others and perhaps yourself, but at the same time, lack the necessary knowledge/logic to come to reasonable conclusions. regards, Reid --- Ingo Schwarze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reid Nichol wrote on Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:02:19AM -0800: > > Duncan Patton a Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> "Eliah Kagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> (There are also multiple useful, > >>> mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) > >> > >> Provably so? > > > > I'd love an example of Math being inconsistent. > > Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if this is true. > > Eliah has beautifully demonstrated this for both Mathematics > and Physics. What is flabbergasting me about such questions > is that these are extremely old facts - essentially, known for > more than 70 years - and many people still believe that formal > science can be both complete and consistent. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki > - nicely narrating how the attempt to transform mathematics > into a single unified and consistent theory miserable failed > > http://wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem > - explaining why > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del (1906-1978) > - "One of the most significant logicians of all time, GC6el's work > has had immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking > in the 20th century, a time when many, such as Bertrand Russell, > A. N. Whitehead and David Hilbert, were attempting to use logic > and set theory to understand the foundations of mathematics." > > Still, many people appearantly never heard of the problems he > described, even though we are now well into the 3rd millenium... > > Reply-To: poster set, we are *terribly* off-topic. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
