Bertrand Russell and "Continuity": Difference between revisions
Imported from text file |
Remove empty None journal/publisher placeholder (dead red-link cleanup) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| keywords = [[Bertrand Russell]], [[hollow]], [[continuity]] | | keywords = [[Bertrand Russell]], [[hollow]], [[continuity]] | ||
| published = 2013 | | published = 2013 | ||
| 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 | |
|---|---|
| Title | Bertrand Russell and "Continuity" |
| Author(s) | Peter F Erickson |
| Keywords | Bertrand Russell, hollow, continuity |
| Published | 2013 |
| 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.