Timeline for Meaning of Kronecker's comment to Lindemann
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 2010 at 18:20 | comment | added | Stefan Geschke | Ultrafinitism was brought up in the previous answer. That why I mention it. The second paragraph was intended to answer the actual question. I understand that I should separated the two parts. | |
| Aug 4, 2010 at 10:55 | comment | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | A brief glance into Kronecker's work will convince you that Kronecker had nothing whatsoever to do with ultrafinitism. So what's the point of bringing it up here? And answers with "I guess" and "he might have" do little to improve the reputation of questions on the history of mathematics on MO. Just my 2 cents . . . | |
| Aug 4, 2010 at 9:13 | comment | added | Stefan Geschke | Could someone tell me why this has been voted down? Is it the comment on ultrafinitism? This is interesting. Personally I am very much of a Platonist and it is very clear to me that infinite sets actually do exist, but still, if one gives it a little unbiased (!) thought about it, ultrafinitism is not as ridiculous as it may seem at first to a trained mathematician. I do believe, though, that ultrafinitism is not a workable theory. – | |
| Aug 3, 2010 at 23:24 | history | answered | Stefan Geschke | CC BY-SA 2.5 |