While many hold mathematics to be the perfect example of a science, where there's only been progress, the entirety of the infinitesimal calculus and it's derivatives are based on false principles
-
-
I don't think I disagree with anything there. Mathematicians don't assign an 'infinite number' to an infinite set as a size. Sets are infinite by virtue of the fact that they aren't in bijective correspondence with any finite set, and that's it.
-
Understood, but Guénon would say that the concept of an "infinite set" is a contradiction in terms, because infinite means not limited, and by saying it is a set you are limiting it to a specific kind of thing. I suppose he would propose using "indefinite set" instead
-
So what would Guénon say about the set of natural numbers? That it's not proper to conceptualize it in totality (because that would delimit it in some sense)?
-
"The finite, even if capable of indefinite extension, is always strictly nil with respect to the Infinite" I think Guénon would affirm the conceptualising of the set in its totality, able of indefinite extension, while also affirming its limit, thus not being an absolute totality
-
To me, being capable of conceptualizing the natural numbers in their totality is sufficient license to begin the logical inquiries that constitute mathematics with them, so perhaps this is where Guénon and I part company (a bit unsure though).
-
Maybe so, I must admit that I may not have done a perfect job of representing his position accurately, so if you wish to get it from the source I would recommend reading the first chapter of his book on the subject, it deals with the principles if I recall correctly
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.