"The Scarlet Manuka" <sacha@maths.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message news://9ufcgh$ja9$1@fang.dsto.defence.gov.au... > "Paul Lutus" <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote in message > news://OjGO7.51786$ox2.3639986@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > > > > In that case, you chose to misrepresent what you read. Assertions were > made > > several times that the default number system is/was/should be one in which > > infinity is explicitly included, and this includes some of your own > remarks. > > In this case it is you who misrepresent what you read, or perhaps > misunderstand it. I have certainly never said such a thing, since > I disagree with it fairly strongly.
What? One example of your statements from this thread, still warm from the oven:
> I said: The term "number system" is not well-defined, and it would be > unwise to define it in such a way as to exclude the extended real numbers.
I then made this specific claim about your specific remark and those of others:
> > Assertions were made > > several times that the default number system is/was/should be one in which > > infinity is explicitly included, and this includes some of your own > > remarks.
Again, since you are having such a tough time absorbing this, you had said:
> I said: The term "number system" is not well-defined, and it would be > unwise to define it in such a way as to exclude the extended real numbers.
The extended reals include +-infinity as members. Therefore your remark, copied from above:
> In this case it is you who misrepresent what you read, or perhaps > misunderstand it. I have certainly never said such a thing, since > I disagree with it fairly strongly.
Is FALSE. Jesus. Accept responsibility for your own remarks. Don't make me do it for you. This most recent exchange has been positively schizoid. Your assertions, and the denials of those assertions, almost fell on top of each other.
