In article <40EE81BB.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eckard Blumschein <email@example.com> wrote:
> David W. Cantrell wrote: > > > > I suspect I do: Eric Weisstein wrote "strangely" because the words "open" > > and "closed" _seem_, based on their extramathematical meanings, to > > contradict each other. > > Isn't the mathematical meaning: Zero is included as well as excluded? > This is exactly what I am trying to suggest for any infinitely precise > real, not just for zero. If a frontier stone of zero dimensions is > immediately surrounded by infinitely much of very similar stuff, then > its removal or the opposite does not matter at all. I suspect: Included > and excluded do contradict in mathematics too, unless they refer to > something infinitesmal small. > > Eckard
Where of Eckard's cogs slipped to allow hom to conflate open or closed with included or excluded?