On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Paul Tanner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Joe Niederberger > <email@example.com> 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"
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.