|
|
|
|
|
|
by syzarian
1257 days ago
|
|
|
That I understand. I objected to the idea that the theory was vague rather than that the theory contains objects that are vague. Even so, if one thinks the theory contains vague objects then we run into considerations such as the following: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/44102/is-the-analysis-as-... I suppose being a finitist allows one the get around what Hankins wrote. |
|
|