|
|
Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Posted:
Sep 16, 2012 2:29 PM
|
|
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Joe Niederberger
<niederberger@comcast.net> wrote:
> Paul Tanner III says:
>>He implies very clearly
> ...
>
> Paul, I don't believe you can ever read anything anyone writes without getting it all twisted and upside down. When called on it, you resort to your standard PT-III "implication" argument -- in your mind people always mean to "imply" whatever distortions you choose for them.
>
In my post
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7890405
I most certainly did show that I was correct in saying that that is
what Devlin said. He did in fact say that repeated addition in the
usual subsets in question of the reals is a derivable property from
the algebraic properties of the field of real numbers.
What you are doing again is disallowing standard usage of terms. The
term is "say" does not as you trying to say here need to taken
literally, and since any statement implies itself, the term "imply"
covers both the literal statement and its non-literal interpretation.
------- End of Forwarded Message
|
|
