Re: How is this collection called?

First, it was cheesy of me to reply to both your thoughts and Jan's in a single post.
I should have taken the trouble to compose two separate replies, and posted them
as responses in the appropriate place.

Second, don't take me too seriously! There is a serious point in what I'm saying, but the tone is light hearted, or at least I intend it that way.

Third, I do kind of regret introducing Brown in here, but it's no big deal.

My reference to Euclid was simply this, and it was for Jan's benefit. The only evaluation we can make of Euclid's work is that it was internally self consistent. AFAIK, so is Brown's. So is Newton's calculus. So is non Euclidian geometry. That's mathematics.

The question that might be one of evidence is whether Brown's account of Russell's evaluation of his work is accurate, and whether Russell was still up to evaluating Brown's work as it should be evaluated. It might be worth confirming or refuting Russell's alleged characterization of his own theory of types as a stopgap. If that was indeed his own view of the matter, it suggests another area for investigation.

Newton's mechanics are different. That's science. Newton's mechanics, as applied to the solar system, adequately explained the data available to him, including Brahe's observations. Newtonian mechanics do not adequately explain the trajectory of Mercury, as observed in the 20th century.

A lot of the discussion in this forum treats science, mathematics, and engineering as though they were all variations on the same theme. They are more than that.

>
Received on Sun Apr 11 2004 - 05:44:20 CEST