In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 9 Dez., 09:49, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <3d8719ec-bdc5-4d42-92f4-059598a76...@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 9 Dez., 00:58, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > A mathematical set only has to distinguish between elements and > > > > non-elements, never between one of its element and another. > > > > > A real number in mathematics has to be an individual that is distinct > > > from every other real number. > > > > But no criterion for being in, or not in, the set of reals distinguishes > > between any one real and any another real. > > > > So however relevant such differences may be for other purposes, as far > > as any set containing them is concerned differences between members is > > totally irrelevant. > > > > "Is x a member of y?" is a purely yes or no question. > > And you answer it without knowing what x is - and probably even > without knowing what y is. And further you don't know what a set is.
One must know something about both x and y to determine whether x is a member of y, but one not need to know everything about either of them. > > That's what I call matheology: Believing without knowing anything > essentially.
What I call mathematics is knowing at least enough not to make a fool of myself, which, in general, I do and WM does not in these discussions.