Jewish Mathematics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cantor#Cantor.27s_ancestry
>Cantor was frequently described as Jewish in his lifetime

It seems clear that Nazi Germany did severely persecute what it defined as “Jewish mathematics”. In his book “History of Mathematics: A Supplement” (Springer 2007) Craig Smorynski said: “… the change of mathematical direction … would reach an extreme in the 1930s with the nazi distinction between good German-Aryan anschauliche (intuitive) mathematics and the awful Jewish tendency toward abstraction and casuistry.

BTW, Zermelo and Fraenkel - both jewish.

Fraenkel was a fervent Zionist and as such was a member of Jewish National Council and the Jewish Assembly of Representatives

A set is a Many that allows itself to be thought of as a One. -- Georg Cantor

The fear of infinity is a form of myopia that destroys the possibility of seeing the actual infinite, even though it in its highest form has created and sustains us, and in its secondary transfinite forms occurs all around us and even inhabits our minds. -- Georg Cantor

I have never proceeded from any Genus supremum of the actual infinite. Quite the contrary, I have rigorously proved that there is absolutely no Genus supremum of the actual infinite. What surpasses all that is finite and transfinite is no Genus; it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding. This is the Actus Purissimus, which by many is called God. -- Georg Cantor

>>1-5
Same person, please get out of *4chan* or if you insist, go back to trolling /sci/
I've already seen you make threads more than 5-6 threads about this.
I feel a bit sorry about your mathematical incompetence, but there's little I can do about that if you're not willing to think and learn for yourself.

>>6
You've nothing but ad hominem. You can neither object my POV, nor defend Cantor and Set Theory jews.

please get out of *4chan*
Not before you, people, remove your jewish math from Computer Science, or prove the existence of "infinity", "unordered sets" and your stupid "God".

>>7
PROVE MY ANUS

>>6
This is some Russian drunk who used to troll 0chan.ru/c/, but after everyone learned to ignore his idiocy there he decided to visit us, and, sadly, found quite enough food here. Like yourself, for example!

>>8
You've nothing but ad hominem. You can neither object my POV, nor defend Cantor and Set Theory jews.

German mathematician found refuge for his groundbreaking work on infinities in, of all places, the Roman Catholic Church... Catholic theologians welcomed Cantor's ideas, which provided a workable way of understanding mathematical infinities, as evidence that humans could grasp the infinite and could also, therefore, have a greater understanding of God, himself infinite.

OP sounds like an INFINITE SET ATHEIST.

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Infinite_set_atheism

Infinite Set Atheism was invented by Eliezer Yudkowsky, also a Jew. OP just can't escape from the Jews.

>>7
If you really want my opinion, it's simple: There is no actual infinity, except in our minds (possibilities) and maybe outside our own universe (if anything does exist, such as other possible universes). This does not mean that I think infinity (as well as real numbers) is not an incredibly useful tool to model all kinds of systems. Just like negative numbers, complex numbers and all other mathematical constructs don't have meaning outside of math, they do allow you to solve and understand all kinds of interesting problems and approximate reality without having to deal with a lot more nastier complexity which would be too much for our human minds. It also allows us to generalize a lot and then build concrete real-world solutions from specific instances.

As for ``God'', that's just a loaded word, mostly by the world's religions and it has all kinds of possible definitions. Some definitions are illogical and can be disregarded as impossible, others are general enough to be in the realm of possibility. Myself, I know one thing to exist: my mind (consciousness) and from all the observations I've made, I'll also conclude that the universe exists (in the sense that the structure exists, not what its implementation details are) and my inner consciousness is something which emerges from my brain which is just matter in this universe. At least from what I've read relating to physics research, I've taken to think of the universe as a possibly finite system which has a certain unique geometry and rules which allow transition from one state to the next. I'd like to think it's discrete underneath and doesn't involve things like infinitesimals, and with my limited understanding of quantum physics, that seems to me to be the case. However, even if one thinks of our universe as one possibility (given its unique geometry) in the possible universe landscape (multiverse), I think that infinity should be allowed, at least only there: why would there only be one universe with some fixed geometry? why not nothing or why not more? Which means I only accept actual infinity in 2 places: one is in constructs built using math (so, an useful tool) and the other is in the set of possible universes, but that's just my philosophical worldview and I may very well be wrong about it, so I'm agnostic about the existence of the multiverse, but I think the alternatives are more complex than that, so I'll just use Occam's razor and leave it at that.  The other interesting case is the fact that I know my raw consciosness exists (and you probably do the same), which is either a great illusion or just an interesting property of our universe or more likely an interesting property of all systems ( I'm of theChalmer's school of thought that all systems of equivalent functionality and organization would form the same kind of consciousness and perceive the same kinds of qualia, that is, if qualia exists at all, and if it doesn't, then this discussion doesn't even matter ). So in my understanding of ``God'' i just treat it the same thing as the multiverse (if it exists) and my raw consciousness (if it exists), or if those things don't exist, just this strange unique and finite universe, but we already have words for those things, so why call it God which is such a loaded word, thanks to the world's religions which try to add all kinds of meanings to things they shouldn't (why should it be human-like or have contradictory properties like omniscience and omnipotence or even illogical/impossible and human-centered properties like omnibenevolence).

>>8
Oh, I'm sorry, I have no idea why I respond to his threads ;_;

>>8
Russian
ask for uor question

>>11
No. OP is a ultrafinitist. Ultrafinitism was started by L. E. J. Brouwer, who was known for assisting in nazis, as well as opposing Cantor's bullshit.

>>12
This does not mean that I think infinity (as well as real numbers) is not an incredibly useful tool to model all kinds of systems.
Useful for whom? Of course, scammers use infinity in various ponzi schemes, promising people infinite profit. So, infinity is just a scam.

>>16
Here, I'll give you some simple examples: the area of a circle (or radius 1) or the length of the diagonal of a square of length 1. If you use math, you can easily calculate what the number will be, even if this number is infinite. If you actually draw/construct an object resembling a circle or a square, you'll find out that the numbers you obtain from direct measurement will be very close (up to some small error, due to the discrete nature of your object) to those when you used infinitesimals. Modeling the length using infinitely small granularity is a lot easier than having to deal with all the details involved in real-world granularity (which will be close to the result you got when you used infinity, up to an error which can be realistically estimated). The math involved in the real-world case would include all kinds of variables you won't be able to account for and only complicate things up to the point where you won't be able to get much work done.

I guess ultrafinitists don't believe in the set R of real numbers or continuity or reasoning about integrals taken limits that approach infinity.

>>18
Ultrafinitists can't do integrals. They're stuck computing Reimann Sums for all eternity.

>>17
You confuse physical alghorithm for drawing pixels on screen with some "abstract" "circle" of yours. The keyword here is "resembling". Eyewitness on TV even seen figures resembling "angels" and "gray aliens".

>>18
I don't understand why they don't like to think of it as a concept. If they don't "believe" in it, all they have to do is prove that such a system is illogical (which doesn't seem to be the case, at least in modern mathematics). Learn2separate reality from imagination and artificial constructs.

>>19
For practical purposes one can just (fold + list)


"pi = 3.14" is (a) infinitely faster than the "correct" answer and (b) the difference between the "correct" and the "wrong" answer is meaningless. And this is why I get upset when somebody dismisses performance issues based on "correctness". -- Linus Torvalds

>>21
"God" is also a "concept". But why should we think about "God"?

>"pi = 3.14" is (a) infinitely faster than the "correct" answer and (b) the difference between the "correct" and the "wrong" answer is meaningless. And this is why I get upset when somebody dismisses performance issues based on "correctness". -- Linus Torvalds
>"pi = 3.14" is (a) infinitely faster
>infinitely faster

Oh, the irony.

prove that such a system is illogical
A false theory is false, even if not halted by a contradiction. -- L. E. J. Brouwer,

>>22
pi is wrong.  tau is the standard!

>>23
You can reason about concepts, including God (as long as you give it some definition). Something being a concept doesn't mean the thing has to exist in real life, how hard is that to understand?

>>25
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies

I'm on to you.

>>25
What does "false" even mean?
If a system has contradictions in it, I consider it invalid, otherwise it's valid. Systems don't have to have to be implemented in the real world to exist as theoretical entities.

>>9
You can neither object my POV, nor defend Cantor and Set Theory jews.

OBJECT TO MY ANUS, mamzer.

>>29
You're misinterpreting it. L.E.J.Brouwer is convinced it's a false theory, he needs not proof to feel this conviction. It was created by Jews, after all! Therefore, if it's a "false theory," it must be false, even if you can't find a contradiction because he had already made up his mind that it's false. It's like someone making up their mind that God is real, because it says so in the Bible, and the Bible is the word of God, therefore God is real.

OP is just appealing to authority using an quotation that itself is illogical. OP confirmed for having an enlarged corpus amygdaloideum.

>>27
You can reason about concepts, including God (as long as you give it some definition)
Yes. You can, if you read Bible, understand it and agree with its "definitions". But who, in his sane mind, would read Bible or other religious book for that matter? We have a nasty situation where completely useless religious system of beliefs is being forced on us starting from school, where kids learn that universe is "infinite" and can be devided into "infinitesimals".

>>29
What does "false" even mean?
That it has no connections to sensible world. Brouwer was an intuitionist, meaning that he wanted to see how theory correlates with reality, like an engineer would like to see how his concept builds on real materials, not some Set Theory Unobtainium craziness.

Translating anschaulich with ``intuitive'' is incorrect.

>>34
http://translate.google.com/?hl=en#de|en|anschauliche
1. clear
2. vivid
3. graphic
4. descriptive
5. concrete
6. lucid
7. picturesque

these are just synonyms for intution or jugement based on subjective qualia (if you ask philosophers).

>>35
In the words of George Berkeley: "Esse est percipi."

And Berkeley was one of first math sceptics, who can be considered as a finitist.

>>35
That's incorrect as well. Look up the definition for ``intuition''. You're out of your element.

Anschaulich means ``visible'' in a metaphorical sense. It conveys that there is something to be reasoned with that makes deductions simple and easy. ``Intuitive'' on the other hand states that no such thing making understanding possible is need because it seems to explain itself.

>>37
That is the point of philosophy of subjectivism. "Visible" means "explains itself". The human mind doesnt generate qualia out of nothing, but combines qualia from what it have seen as "visible".

this thread hasnt named any jewish mathematicians except for Cantor. Im not familiar with any notable mathematicians except for Gaus, Euler, Newton, etc. Incidently, I believe what we know recognize as physicists like Einstien were known as mathematicians in their day

I read 4chan because I enjoy watching people who are depressed, suicidal, antisocial and socially abused talk about their life like they are normal and have no problems

there is your tl:dr in a nutshell

>>39
>>2

Jewish Math is a mathematics based on Set Theory. It is called jewish, because its inventors and proponents were mostly jews, who were interested in it because of their religious traditions. Look at Cantor's quotes (>>5 >>4), he talks like a religious fanatic.

fuck this thread in the ass

>>43 I wouldn't fuck it with my own tits.