In <20120524183145.077$1Q@newsreader.com>, on 05/24/2012 at 10:31 PM, email@example.com (Curt Welch) said:
>There is no need to pretend a number exists.
Whoosh! Humor is such a subjective thing.
>Counts of objects do exist.
Finger folding and marks on paper are not numbers.
Ah, so you concede the point.
>That was not my question.
You didn't have a question; you had a statement masquerading as a question.
>My question was whether anyone has yet found a >practical application for pretending machines that can finish >counting to infinity can "exist" has any practical application.
As long as you refuse to ask an honest question youi can expect ridicule. Begging the question doesn't cut it. You've already admitted that abstractions exist and have not demonstrated that there is any pretending involved.
>Show my an example of one existing please.
Not until you justify your claim.
>We don't need to prove a negative. We assume a negative is false, >until there is data to show us otherwise.
So if the negative is "Curt is not dishonest", we should assume that it is false?
>What does that mean? It means that the existence of a counting >machine that can finishing counting to infinity,
Then it has no relevance, because you are the one that wants such a machine. It has nothing to do with whether either "infinity" or infinite sets exist.
>Then what it is founded on?
Reaoning from axioms.
>The foundations of mathematics, comes from the machine that does >the mathematics.
Is it your position that neither the human brain nor written text are part of the Universe?
>What strikes me as highly problematic about the current >mathematics, is that most of what I'm saying seems to be still be >ignored by the field
Well, if you told a conductor that concerti don't exist, how long would it take you to convince him and his colleagues? Would they take you seriously if you claimed that a kettledrum was a string instrument?
>They ignore it, because
It reflects a misunderstanding of what Mathematics is about, not because of the bogus reasons you give.
>When we talk about numbers, as I talked about above, we are talking >about machines that can count
Demonstrably false; *you* are talking about such machines, *we* are not.
 A word that has narrow meanings in Mathematics quite unrelated to the way that amateurs sling it around here.
 Google for "compactification" and for "series"
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to firstname.lastname@example.org