Reputation
1,724
Next privilege 2,000 Rep.
Edit questions and answers
Badges
1 9 18
Impact
~20k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 129 votes cast
Jan
15
answered Is the space of test functions separable?
Jan
13
comment compact-open topology on $B(H)$
Thank you. The definition of Saks space resembles Smith space. I suspect, there is an equivalence in essence...
Jan
13
comment compact-open topology on $B(H)$
This is strange, I still can't find... Do you happen to have a file of this paper, so that you could send it to me?
Jan
13
comment compact-open topology on $B(H)$
That's interesting. Could you, please, give a more precise reference? I can't find this paper...
Jan
7
revised Understanding Bruhat's notion of Schwartz function
added 7 characters in body
Jan
7
revised Understanding Bruhat's notion of Schwartz function
added 9 characters in body
Jan
7
revised Understanding Bruhat's notion of Schwartz function
added 367 characters in body
Jan
7
comment Understanding Bruhat's notion of Schwartz function
As far as I know, it was not translated. I can send you my papers in English on this topic.
Jan
7
revised Understanding Bruhat's notion of Schwartz function
added 36 characters in body
Jan
7
revised Understanding Bruhat's notion of Schwartz function
added 1 characters in body
Jan
7
revised Understanding Bruhat's notion of Schwartz function
added 1 characters in body
Jan
7
revised Understanding Bruhat's notion of Schwartz function
added 1 characters in body
Jan
7
answered Understanding Bruhat's notion of Schwartz function
Dec
26
comment Is Euclid dead?
When I was arguing with people at that time the only possible argument for me was appealing to the example of Euclidean Geometry. "Look what logic actually is!" - that was my argument, and only this worked. Even the logical method of analysis could be interpreted as "just several tricks among others, includong tricks of dialectic". The qualitative difference lies in axiomatic systems (and EG is the only one that was sucessfully taught at school).
Dec
26
comment Is Euclid dead?
I am not against any type of formal logic, including intuitionist or any other. But in any way when you accept formal rules, they don't allow you to "deduce" everything what you want, like this was in marxist propaganda. They needed dialectic (see vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/popper_what-is-dialectic.pdf) to have this indulgence, this possibility to deduce what they needed in every concrete moment. Sometimes, when the situation changed, they changed their conclusions to the opposite ones. But every time this was under the slogans that "these are the last words of modern science!"
Dec
26
comment Is Euclid dead?
@quid, I think, the problem is that you had no deal with marxist propaganda: their main thesis in this area was that there is "formal logic" (in usual mathematical sense), and this is "old-fashioned", "mathephysical", "wrong" logic. And on the other hand, there is "dialectic", "the modern logic", "true logic", "the last word of the science". And of course, a thinking person must choose dialectic, since this is "modern science". To understand what lies behind this (and to be able to find counter-arguments) you had to know what formal logic actually was. That was the question.
Dec
26
comment Is Euclid dead?
For example, I don't believe that it is possible to contest Hegel's "reasonings" which I cited, if you are not familiar with formal logic and its substantial applications like EG: all your objections will be broken on the thesis that "this is the old-fashioned understanding of the subject, but the modern science and modern logic suggest that..." - and so on.
Dec
26
comment Is Euclid dead?
@quid, something similar was in the soviet education: in the course of history (and philosophy in universities) there were lessons where teachers gave some imagination of different religions. But the accent was that "the true scientific approach suggests that..." - and after that the quotations of Lenin, Marx, Hegel - and deep in chronology. So for forming critical view this seemed to be almost useless in that situation.
Dec
25
comment Is Euclid dead?
@quid: this is amazing: " religion and latin". Will it be difficult to you to give an example?
Dec
25
comment Is Euclid dead?
@quid: It's a great surprise for me that Latin or Philosophy can be seriously considered as alternatives for studying Logic. In Russia only physicians study Latin. Philosophy exists in universities (and partly was presented in ideological disciplines like "history" or "state and law" at school), but it was considered that its aim was to provide ideological fundament for the communist party's politics. As a corollary, they did their best to make an impression that the statements like what I quoted from Hegel "follow directly from rules of logic".