[bksvol-discuss] Re: mathematical books
- From: "Sarah Van Oosterwijck" <curiousentity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:42:21 -0600
Wow, sounds kind of tedious, but it is really great that someone is willing
to take on such challenges. It is so extremely hard to find usable books
about math that are possible to read when your blind unless you buy a
brailled book, which isn't always affordable for individuals only reading a
book for curiocity.
Sarah Van Oosterwijck
http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rachel" <rherold@xxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 10:17 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: mathematical books
> From: "Cindy" <popularplace@xxxxxxxxx>
> > As you probably know (some people are just starting
> > and don't) there's no limit on the number of times one
> > can renew.
> yep, though it doesn't need to be renewed because i haven't submitted it
> yet! I've got it scanned now it's a matter of going thru and making sure
the
> sentences are in the right order and redoing all the mathematical
notations.
>
> > I think the book you're doing will be very useful to
> > some of the students.
> This is actually just a fun book, not a textbook. It is a book of
everyday
> reader level essays. Some of the topics are "logic & proof", "cantorian
set
> theory and transfinite numbers", "group theory", "2 and 3 person game
> theory", and non-euclidian geometry.
> >
> > When you have some time, can you explain what cantor's
> > hypothesis is? In simple terms? or is that not
> > possible. It sounds like something Reuven in Chaim
> > Potok's The Chosen would have studied.
> Well, Reuven was more into gematria, which does use numbers but not this
> way, and psychology if I remember correctly.
> The article I'm proofing currently is about cantor's proof of set theory
for
> rational and irrational numbers. Cantor's set theory is what he is
admired
> for in the mathematical community.
> Cantor's claim to general public level of fame though is his "proof"
> (hypothesis) of infinity. Which, if you think about it, could only be
> proved to be not finite, but not actually infinite because we as humans
> cannot prove something we have no way of describing, yet... His other
claim
> to general public fame was his many mental breakdowns during his
> concentrated work on the infinity theory; my interpretation was that he
> tweaked his mind trying to understand something that the human mind is not
> able to comprehend; his mind was not limber enough to adjust to his
> learning without rebelling at times and shutting down to protect itself.
> Rachel
>
>
Other related posts:
