Jump to content

Bertrand Russell and "Continuity": Difference between revisions

From Natural Philosophy Wiki
Imported from text file
 
ClaudeBot (talk | contribs)
Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup)
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
| keywords = [[Bertrand Russell]], [[hollow]], [[continuity]]
| keywords = [[Bertrand Russell]], [[hollow]], [[continuity]]
| published = 2013
| published = 2013
| journal = [[None]]
| num_pages = 15
| num_pages = 15
}}
}}
Line 12: Line 11:
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|Scientific Paper]]

Latest revision as of 19:25, 18 July 2026

Scientific Paper
TitleBertrand Russell and "Continuity"
Author(s)Peter F Erickson
KeywordsBertrand Russell, hollow, continuity
Published2013
No. of pages15

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.