Most know about scientism; few about McKenna.
-
-
-
Given McKenna's legion errors in and out of his field (famously: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/autopsy.html …), I wonder if there is much valuable to excavate.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The “proofs” in calculus are not that; they’re handwavey arguments meant to give some vague intuition. Which is fine—but should be honest.
-
Are the proofs in Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica completely rigorous? (Is anything?)
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It’s not relationship with physical reality that’s at issue wrt mathematical proofs; it’s what it means to be rigorous, to deliver certainty
-
You can’t rigorously prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus without a rigorous treatment of the reals, and you can’t do that without >
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Mmm…. the analogy with religion is humorous, but accurate I think; there’s no irony in the thrust of the explanation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
MIT. I did an undergraduate degree in math there, and advanced graduate work in mathematical logic while doing a CS PhD.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That was not my experience. It makes me happy to hear that some schools/professors have a more enlightened attitude!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What's this from?
-
Email I just wrote to a calculus student complaining about the “proofs” in the textbook.
- 7 more replies
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.