The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Re: 0 = 1
Replies: 20   Last Post: Oct 5, 2017 3:03 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 248
Registered: 12/20/15
Re: 0 = 1
Posted: Oct 4, 2017 10:58 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Conway pretended :
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 8:41:08 PM UTC-5, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson used his keyboard to write :
>>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 12:42:13 PM UTC-7, Conway wrote:
>>>> Peter
>>>> Correct me here if I'm wrong...
>>>> This thread was over a week old with no replys...
>>>> Why did you bring it back up if nothing had changed in your opinion?
>>>> Only two scenarios exist...
>>>> 1. Your just a troll
>>>> 2. Something I said is nagging the back of your mind....saying...he may
>>>> just be right.

>>> You might as well go on with your constructions
>>> not receiving much shall we say constructive,
>>> criticism.
>>> Though, you can readily expect others to understand
>>> their constructive content.

>> I have not been fighting the idea, but it is my belief that he is
>> trying to 'get around' some perceived problem with zero -- it being
>> excluded from being a denominator. I feel that the so-called problem
>> has already been solved via the Limit idea.
>> Ingrained in my mind is the idea that numbers are values devoid of any
>> other thing such as he suggests like 'space'. The reason is by the
>> surprising (to me at the time) idea that the rationals are not
>> continuous. It would seem that due to the fact that denominators can be
>> any natural number, perhaps infinitely large, that the 'distance' (or
>> space?) between adjacent ones on the rational number line could be
>> completely filled. Their being 'discreet' values had escaped me at the
>> time.
>> Then there are irrational numbers arrived at by algebra (such as the
>> squareroot of two) which must 'fit' between some two of these
>> previously determined rational numbers. Okay, so that surely must fill
>> the line up. These irrationals are algebraic and are countable. Then
>> there are the transcendentals, and again there must be "room" for them.
>> Uncountably many of them. I think that there must be no "width" to
>> numbers at all on the real number line.
>> So bottom line:
>> 1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>> 2) That doesn't mean such an idea is meaningless, in fact new math is
>> often created while exploring things which for all intents and purposes
>> *seem* meaningless to others at the time they are being explored.
>> Euler's Totient function comes to mind here, I read somewhere that it
>> was considered 'a neat trick, but what good is it' by other
>> mathematicians of the time. It turns out to be quite useful today in
>> simplifying calculations reducing the 'computing cost' of encryption
>> related calculations.

> Ross
> I feel your post makes my point. I do not say this sarcastically or
> you say
> "there MUST be ROOM for them all......"
> you however say...therefore this means numbers have NO space
> I however say... this means space and value are "interchangeable"...or
> "relative"
> "if it ain't broke don't fix it"...I agree
> but this does NOT mean
> "if it ain't broke don't improve upon it"
> there is always room for improvement
> as you say
> this all might seem pointless now...but later.....

I'm not Ross, I was replying to Ross. I agree with Ross about you not
being discouraged in your explorations just because of a lack of
constructive criticism.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.