The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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 ]

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 233
Posted: Mar 28, 2013 3:54 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 3/28/2013 2:46 PM, Gus Gassmann wrote:
> On 28/03/2013 3:38 PM, fom wrote:
>> 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.

> I don't think so. I think the issue is that Mueckenheim, whom someone
> decided to hire as a professor of mathematics at a third-rate
> institution, manages to obfuscate just enough the distinction between
> repeating and non-repeating decimals when he applies them to paths, and
> that he is too dense to comprehend that. Crayon marks, indeed.

Well, that is the real-world issue. It is what motivates
Virgil to reply regularly to this nonsense.

He has stated as much.

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.