
Re: NonEuclidean 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 PTIII "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 nonliteral 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

