David Hobby wrote:

>

> Hi. Thanks for pointing out the status of the Conservapedia.

> I'd say it's a good thing, since I don't really want the

> authors trying to edit Wikipedia!

>

As if there were enough trolls in the Wikipedia...

> There is an interesting question: Could Conservapedia just

> copy articles on non-controversial subjects from Wikipedia?

> Maybe if they included an attribution in 6-point type?

> (I'm shaky on exactly what the public license for Wikipedia

> content says.)

>

I am not a lawier, but I guess Wikipedia's GPL license allows

the copy of Wikipedia stuff to any other site that has

similar licenses.

> There are some thorny problems for religious fundamentalists,

> even in mathematics. The only safe thing to do might be to

> have a completely finitary mathematics, making no assumptions

> about infinite objects whatsoever.

>

Maybe a conservative math should ban all things that come

from Satan, like those evil imaginary numbers or even the

blasphemous sqrt(2). If the Creator can make sqrt(2) rational,

who is Man to deny it?

> If you go the latter route, I'd recommend assuming the

> Axiom of Constructibility, which states that "the only

> sets that exist are the ones required by the other axioms

> of set theory". There doesn't seem to be an entry on

> Conservapedia, yet:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_constructibility

>

Conservapedia is quite poor in Math articles.

> Large Cardinal Heresy, Maru

>

OTOH, maybe a conservative math would be comfortable with an

absolute universal set...

Alberto Monteiro

_______________________________________________

http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l