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

Topic: Why do we need those real non-constructible numbers?
Replies: 2   Last Post: Nov 10, 2017 1:02 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
zelos.malum@gmail.com

Posts: 904
Registered: 9/18/17
Re: Why do we need those real non-constructible numbers?
Posted: Nov 10, 2017 8:46 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Den fredag 10 november 2017 kl. 13:38:40 UTC+1 skrev John Gabriel:
> On Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:43:36 UTC-5, WM wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 9. November 2017 10:43:42 UTC+1 schrieb John Gabriel:
> > > On Thursday, 9 November 2017 04:10:42 UTC-5, WM wrote:
> > > > Am Donnerstag, 9. November 2017 09:52:09 UTC+1 schrieb John Gabriel:
> > > > > On Thursday, 9 November 2017 01:45:55 UTC-5, WM wrote:
> > > > > > Am Donnerstag, 9. November 2017 00:20:12 UTC+1 schrieb John Gabriel:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >

> > > > > > > In fact WM, if you try to state that half itself or any other portion of itself measures it, then you've already assumed that the whole has a measure. That's incorrect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I assume that the diagonal of a square has a length.

> > > > >
> > > > > Of course a diagonal has a length, but it has no measure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Length =/= measure
> > > > >

> > > > Here you are a greater purist than me. But would it cause mathematics going astray when lenght is equated with measure of length and number is equated with measure?
> > >
> > > Well, I am surprised you even ask. Isn't that what is at the root of most discussions here on sci.math? How can you expect to have a clear discussion about mathematics when there is no agreement on what is the base concept, that is, *number* ?

> >
> > There is a definition by majority decision.

>
> There are many definitions by the *majority*. As I recall, aleph0 and infinite set theory and agreed upon beliefs (axioms).
>

> > They call limits of Cauchy sequences real numbers.
>
> Who cares what they call it. It's pure rubbish.
>

> >
> > Regards, WM


You confuse things with your own, your stuff is rubbish, not theirs.



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 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.