Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13984RE: [PrimeNumbers] Infinite primes-> a Turing Machine prime sieve that never stops?

Expand Messages
  • Paul Leyland
    Nov 5 1:15 AM
      Roger Bagula wrote:

      [Philosophical meandering deleted.]

      > I don't know if any of this answers you list of questions or not.

      No, it does not. Please post again, including my text and at
      the appropriate point intersperse your answer to each specific
      question that I asked.

      > I really don't like to get in such discussions,

      That is becoming ever more clear as time goes by.

      > since math people seem to ignore any philosophical issues by
      > defining them away. Axioms and definitions are an answer
      > to all their thinking problems?

      Close, but no cigar. Axioms and definitions are the foundations
      of mathematical thinking. Rigorously correct logical arguments
      are the building blocks placed on the foundations. If you wish to
      be considered to be doing mathematics, please use clear and precise

      > As a physical scientist ( chemist, physical scientist)
      > I'm not bound by those rules in my thinking.

      Ah, so you're not a mathematician and you are not interested in
      participating in mathematics. Why, then, are you making so much
      noise in an indubitably mathematical forum?

      FWIW, my background is in the physical sciences. I have a BA in
      chemistry from Oxford and my DPhil was for research in molecular
      spectroscopy. I personally don't regard that as an obstacle to
      contributing in a small way to a mathematical subject. I'm not
      bound by the rules of mathematics any more than you are, but I
      choose to follow them when communicating with mathematicians. If
      you wish to converse with practitioners of other fields of study,
      please do so but, please, do it in a relevant forum elsewhere and
      use their rules to do so. Again, FWIW, I'm quite happy to talk
      about quantum field theory or geometrodynamics, but not here.

      > In other words is science more fundamental
      > philosophically than mathematics at a metamathematical level?

      A very good question and one well worth discussing, but not here.
      It is not (IMO, the moderators may disagree) relevant to the
      advertised aims of the forum.

    • Show all 21 messages in this topic