|
|
Re: Non-Euclidean Arithmetic
Posted:
Sep 16, 2012 5:58 PM
|
|
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Paul Tanner <upprho@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
And the term "imply" is a synonym of the term "say"
http://thesaurus.com/browse/say
and I used the terms as such.
I challenge you to prove by actually citing quotes within the set of Devlin quotes I gave that Devlin did not say in that set of quotes what I said he said, which is that repeated addition is a property of (not *is*) multiplication in the reals or in any of these subsets of the reals in question that can be derived using the algebraic properties in question.
------- End of Forwarded Message
|
|
