Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Matheology � 233
Replies: 37   Last Post: May 12, 2014 10:24 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
fom

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 233
Posted: Mar 28, 2013 2:38 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 3/28/2013 7:48 AM, WM wrote:
>>
> If the set of all rationals exists, then that limit exists already in
> that set. Combining paths with loss of nodes is not useful to increase
> the number of paths.


But no one is talking about whether the sequence
of rationals converging to a rational is in the
set of rationals.

The issue is a representation of apparent geometric
completeness within an arithmetical system.

The issue is the logical form of such a construction.

That you believe your crayon marks justify a material
belief in some abstract, non-material objects but deny
a material belief in other abstract, non-material
objects verges on sheer lunacy.

Crayon marks have nothing to do with it.

Belief has nothing to do with it.

And, your ability to call certain crayon marks "names"
has nothing to do with it either. You failed your
science lesson on those days too.





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.