In article <4108567.358.1331903583821.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhy1>, Daryl McCullough <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >On Thursday, March 15, 2012 4:58:21 PM UTC-4, Transfer Principle wrote: >> On Mar 14, 10:07=A0am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I've stated before that I definitely do _not_ consider "1+1=3D2" and >> "card(N)<card(R)" to be "exactly the very same." In particular, I >> consider those who refute the former to be indefensible, but not >> those who refute the latter. > >1+1=2 is true for the usual meaning of the symbols in the same >way that card(N) < card(R) is true for the usual meanings of the >symbols. There's really no difference, in principle. > >Yes, you can change the meanings of "cardinality" to make the >latter false, but you can also change the meaning of "+" to >make the former false.
For instance, in the modular arithmetic of order two, 1+1=0.
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.