Difference between revisions of "Bertrand Russell and "Continuity""
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Central to establishment’s concept of continuity is that there be no “next-to.” It is integral to set theory and modern mathematics. Bertrand Russell noticed that it is in conflict with the common sense understanding of differential equations. Nonetheless, he accepted it. This led to a bizarre notion of a “physical object.” Is there an alternative to this concept of continuity? Yes, there is. | Central to establishment’s concept of continuity is that there be no “next-to.” It is integral to set theory and modern mathematics. Bertrand Russell noticed that it is in conflict with the common sense understanding of differential equations. Nonetheless, he accepted it. This led to a bizarre notion of a “physical object.” Is there an alternative to this concept of continuity? Yes, there is. | ||
| − | [[Category:Scientific Paper]] | + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|]] |
Latest revision as of 10:05, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Bertrand Russell and "Continuity" |
| Author(s) | Peter F Erickson |
| Keywords | Bertrand Russell, hollow, continuity |
| Published | 2013 |
| Journal | None |
| No. of pages | 15 |
Abstract
Central to establishment’s concept of continuity is that there be no “next-to.” It is integral to set theory and modern mathematics. Bertrand Russell noticed that it is in conflict with the common sense understanding of differential equations. Nonetheless, he accepted it. This led to a bizarre notion of a “physical object.” Is there an alternative to this concept of continuity? Yes, there is.
[[Category:Scientific Paper|]]
