Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: distinguishability - in context, according to definitions
Posted:
Feb 14, 2013 10:32 AM
|
|
In <qImdnYCz5tRmvITMnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, on 02/11/2013
at 10:53 AM, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> said:
>Should I assume this question is contemptuous?
More precisely, that you were slinging around symbols and words
without knowing what they mean, and inventing a local language without
providing definitions. That, by the way, is what some of the
participants in the tree thread were doing.
You might start by thinking about what you meant by "9.999...", then
asking whether "pattern matching" has any relevance.
Similarly, what were you trying to say when you wrote 'Now, in what
follows, the particular problem will be considering the nature of
eventually constant sequences taken to be ontologically "the same."'?
Do you know what syntax is? What do Dedekind cuts have to do with
decimal expansions, other than the trivial sense that they can be used
to construct a model of the Reals?
You really need to step back, separate out the philosophy from the
mathematics and define any terms that you aren't uisng in accordance
with standard practice.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
|
|
|
|
