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 4:05 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 3/28/2013 2:54 PM, fom wrote:
> 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.

It is *the obfuscation* that motivates Virgil.

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.