Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Topic: Matheology � 261
Replies: 11   Last Post: May 16, 2013 8:42 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 261
Posted: May 15, 2013 7:02 PM

On 5/15/2013 5:40 PM, AMiews wrote:
> "WM" <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message

>> On 12 Mai, 23:03, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>>

>>>>> The process by which you get any line is not independent of the prior
>>>>> lines having at one time been in existence, so all those prior lines
>>>>> once existed

>>>
>>>> But there is no difference for a line whether or not the preceding
>>>> lines continue to exist.

>>>
>>> Once it has come into existence, its continued existence may not be
>>> needed, but if it never had existed, neither could its successors.
>>>
>>> In a sane world the existence of 2 requires a prior existence of 1, and
>>> existence of any natural n + 1 requires a prior existence of n.

>>
>> So 3 + 4 is 16 because the predecessors of 3 and 4 claim their right?
>>
>> Regards, WM

>
> wrong,
> 3 + 4 = 10 base 7
> or 3 + 4 = 11 base 6
> or 3 + 4 = 12 base 5
>
> So why you say 16 ?
>
>

1+2+3=6
1+2+3+4=10
10+6=16

"predecessors of 3 and 4 claim their right"

Date Subject Author
5/11/13 Virgil
5/12/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/12/13 Virgil
5/12/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/12/13 Virgil
5/14/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/14/13 Virgil
5/15/13 Scott Berg
5/15/13 fom
5/16/13 Scott Berg