In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8 Feb., 19:46, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) > wrote: > > In article > > <2479f40f-751a-45c3-bb60-40cd5ef05...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, WM > > <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: > > > > >On 8 Feb., 18:14, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > >> On 2/8/2013 2:41 AM, WM wrote: > > >> > Standard terminology is that X is countable iff X is listable. > > > > >> Please cite a source for "listable" > > > > >A set is listable means, that it can be written as a sequence (with no > > >repeating terms - but that is not important). Listable is identical > > >with countable. > > > > You appear to be unable to cite a source for this usage, which leads > > observers to believe that it is not standard terminology. After all, > > if it was standard terminology instead of your private language, > > your response to a request for a source would be to provide one, not > > to restate your private definition in a different fashion. > > A list is an enumerated set of entries. If entries can appear more > than once then it is simply a sequence. This definition is known by > every expert. Asking for it shows a high measure of ignorance.
Asking for a formal definition may also be expressing one's certainty that that ignorance is in the one being asked for the definition, i.e., in WM's ignorance.
> And > everyone who does not know it, should be glad to get it kindly > explained. In no case he is entitled to be treated like an > interlocutor in a scientific dispute.
Then why does WM keep acting an interlocutor in a scientific dispute.
Mathematics is not science nor only a part of science, but an largely independent area of study, certainly useful to science but not a slave to it. --