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

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 § 261
Posted: May 15, 2013 7:02 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 5/15/2013 5:40 PM, AMiews wrote:
> "WM" <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
> news:2910c29a-42ce-4273-893a-8a16e2878804@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

>> 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"





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.