On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Joe Niederberger <email@example.com> wrote: > Paul Tanner III >>The term can be used in more than one way. When I said "name" I meant, for sake of simplicity as I explicitly said, instead of saying (x,0) just say x. > > You don;t understand. There aren't enough name likes > x, x, z, x', x'' etc. Those are countable -- leading to a terribly unfair game of musical chairs. The vast majority of reals are unnameable and undefinable, lost souls waiting for someone kindhearted to pity them. > > Your "process" is no process at all, it has 0% chance of being carried out in general. It has a big "gotcha!" that you blithely skip over ("A Miracle Happens Here!) > > Even phrases like "W.L.O.G." won't make this pig sing. > > For the countable set of numbers that are amenable to a process leading to an answer (find the product of two numbers,) you will find iteration or recursion absolutely necessary one way or another. > > In defense of similar triangles I will say I'm not against imaginary procedures that cannot really be carried out. They may even lead someone to carry out a simulacrum of the unreal procedure in the real world. The real world versions only work for a finite number of limited precision numbers though, and in the engraving of various scales (that word!) an iteration procedure was involved somewhere along the line. > >
"It's a process only if it's a computation" and "it exists only if it's computable" exist only in a small mind.