On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Joe Niederberger <email@example.com> wrote: > Paul Tanner III says: >>Define "answer". > > All you do is play these word games. >
No, you are the one playing word games - see the below.
> Tell us Paul what did Devlin mean by "answer"? He used that word too. >
Yes, but you would not accept e(pi) as the answer to multiplying e and pi - even though it is the only answer that is not an approximation - and that's that's the game you and those who promote repeated addition as what multiplication is all the way up through all of the reals. You substitute approximations for the actual answer that is actually the output of the function of binary multiplication on R, R x R -> R.
>>On your claim that we can ban almost all of the real numbers and everything will just fine: > > Distorter! Denier of what I actually said! Denigrater > of the truth I spoke! >
I dealt with the act that you are the one who said that almost everyone never needs to deal with mathematics that deals with non-computable objects - when as we all know everyone does need to deal with all the reals in any and all mathematics based on the reals, which is essentially all the math everyone learns in high school and beyond.
And in that post I also met your challenge to show a scaling model for multiplying any two reals that gives us via geometric construction the point (product) ab on the number given any two points (real numbers) a and b on the number line.