Paul Lutus wrote: > > "Mike Oliver" <oliver@math.ucla.edu> wrote in message > news://3C070157.A8F54766@math.ucla.edu... > > I said: > > > Terrific. Okay, make up your own definition of "number system," ignore the > > content of mathematical terminology. Disregard the corpus of mathematical > > literature on this topic.
There is no such corpus. Random websites don't count; I could find you a dozen that claim to refute Cantor and/or Goedel. Any crank can put up a webpage.
> Then you said -- > > > But "number system" is more of a description; there is simply no > > general agreement on any precise definition for what a "number system" > > is. > This departure into solipsism tells me you do in fact intend to define > "number system" any way you please.
Lutus, you're being an ass. Solipsism doesn't enter into it. Precise mathematical terms should be used precisely; "number system" just is not such a term. Postmodernism isn't relevant either; the extended complex number system predates Derrida by a good piece, I should think.
> Meanwhile, in the present context, and > for the OP's specific outlook and purposes, "number system" means something > that cannot include infinity as a member.
Bullshit. The OP's original post was close to unintelligible, so I refuse to buy your claim to understand his outlook and purposes.
