Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 16, 2013 5:45 PM


On 16 Mrz., 22:20, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <ee21d4f5aa664c4b8d53700304185...@14g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: > > On 16 Mrz., 16:01, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > > perhaps you could explain what you mean > > > by "given object" and how an immaterial > > > object can be given. > > > It cannot be given other than by naming it (except from clumsy > > approaches by means of sign language). > > I do not regard pointing at a thing to identify it as being at all > clumsy.
I agree, but you have misunderstood or not read carefully enough. Above fom talks about an *immaterial* object. Defining a number like pi without words, by sign language only, might easily appear clumsy. > > Pointing to things on a blackboard is often considerably less clumsy > than any other way of referring to them. But blackboards may be too > outre to be used in WM's world.
I like the blackboard and use it in every lesson, but only as an additional medium for further explanations.
Regards, WM



