When I spoke of my 'mystification', just now, I had partly in mind the contemptuous way in which some enthusiasts for the 'new infinite' treat those who still cling to the superstition that 'the whole is greater than the part'. [...] I feel considerable shyness in differing from such superior minds {{like Russell} yet what can one do but follow one's own dim light? [W. James: "Some problems of philosophy", Longmans, New York (1916) pp. 179 & 183]

The universe uses real numbers, but only uses sets which are measurable, is, I think, the moral to be drawn from the Banach-Tarski paradox. Anyway, functional analysis only uses measurable functions ... . [J.F. Johnson in "Does the Banach-Tarski paradox contradict our understanding of nature?", Physics.StackExchange (10 Apr 2012)]

The entire structure of pure mathematics is a monstrous swindle, simply a game, a reckless prank. You may well ask: "Are there no renegades to reveal the truth?" Yes, of course. But the facts are so incredible that no one takes them seriously. So the secret is in no danger. [Wikiquote]

I think, second order categoricity results are deceiving: they serve only to puzzle ordinary mathematicians who do not know enough logic to distinguish between first order and second order methods. One can say humorously, while first order reasonings are convenient for proving true mathematical theorems, second order reasonings are convenient for proving false metamathematical theorems. [L. Kalmár: "On the role of second order theories" in I. Lakatos (ed.): "Problems in the philosophy of mathematics", North Holland, Amsterdam (1967) p. 104]

One central agent of the connection between mathematics and religion is the concept of infinity (but it is not the only one!). [...] until the Cantorian parthenogenesis between mathematics and religion [...] A second theme running through many chapters of the book is the search for a global vision uniting mathematics and religion. [J.-M. Kantor: "Review of Teun Koetsier and Luc Bergmans (eds.): 'Mathematics and the Divine. A Historical Study', Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)", The Mathematical Intelligencer 30,4 (2008) p. 70f]

....more obscure cherry picking....

On 12/21/2021 5:07 AM, WM wrote:
> When I spoke of my 'mystification', just now, I had partly in mind the contemptuous way in which some enthusiasts for the 'new infinite' treat those who still cling to the superstition that 'the whole is greater than the part'. [...] I feel considerable shyness in differing from such superior minds {{like Russell} yet what can one do but follow one's own dim light? [W. James: "Some problems of philosophy", Longmans, New York (1916) pp. 179 & 183]

from above, [its WMs justification];

"...yet what can one do but follow one's own dim light?..."

>
> *The universe uses real numbers*, but only uses sets which are measurable, is, I think, the moral to be drawn from the Banach-Tarski paradox. Anyway, functional analysis only uses measurable functions ... . [J.F. Johnson in "Does the Banach-Tarski paradox contradict our understanding of nature?", Physics.StackExchange (10 Apr 2012)]

nope, *the universe is analog*.

>
> The entire structure of pure mathematics is a monstrous swindle, simply a game, a reckless prank. You may well ask: "Are there no renegades to reveal the truth?" Yes, of course. But the facts are so incredible that no one takes them seriously. So the secret is in no danger. [Wikiquote]

clearly because "Math is Racist" - Oregon Department of Education , 2021

>
> I think, second order categoricity results are deceiving: they serve only to puzzle ordinary mathematicians who do not know enough logic to distinguish between first order and second order methods. One can say humorously, while first order reasonings are convenient for proving true mathematical theorems, second order reasonings are convenient for proving false metamathematical theorems. [L. Kalmár: "On the role of second order theories" in I. Lakatos (ed.): "Problems in the philosophy of mathematics", North Holland, Amsterdam (1967) p. 104]

publication intentionally ignores third order reasonings, and fourth order reasonings, and k+1 reasonings

>
> One central agent of the connection between mathematics and religion is the concept of infinity (but it is not the only one!). [...] until the Cantorian parthenogenesis between mathematics and religion [...] A second theme running through many chapters of the book is the search for a global vision uniting mathematics and religion. [J.-M. Kantor: "Review of Teun Koetsier and Luc Bergmans (eds.): 'Mathematics and the Divine. A Historical Study', Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)", The Mathematical Intelligencer 30,4 (2008) p. 70f]

the paper ignores that fact that 97.5% of the famous mathematicians, all practiced religion.

On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-5, WM wrote:

>
> One central agent of the connection between mathematics and religion is the concept of infinity (but it is not the only one!). [...] until the Cantorian parthenogenesis between mathematics and religion [...] A second theme running through many chapters of the book is the search for a global vision uniting mathematics and religion. [J.-M. Kantor: "Review of Teun Koetsier and Luc Bergmans (eds.): 'Mathematics and the Divine. A Historical Study', Elsevier, Amsterdam (2005)", The Mathematical Intelligencer 30,4 (2008) p. 70f]

What then is a finite set in MuckeMath??? No religion please.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com