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 § 288
Replies: 15   Last Post: Jun 22, 2013 12:23 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 4,165
From: London
Registered: 2/8/08
Re: Matheology § 288
Posted: Jun 20, 2013 7:11 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"Alan Smaill" <> wrote in message
> "Julio Di Egidio" <> writes:
>> "fom" <> wrote in message

>>> "Numbers count themselves"
>> Indeed, how else?

> What does pi count?
> Isn't it a number?

pi counts pi, of course...

>> I am in fact surprised a "foundationalist" would
>> ever have any doubt with that.

> Since no natural number counts the set of natural numbers, there
> is every reason to be sceptical of simplistic formulations such as above.

It's indeed simplistic, to the point of meaninglessness, when taken out of
context. It was in fact part of a discussion that is beyond just the
present thread, about (as I'd put it) arithmetical foundations from the
natural/counting numbers. There, informally speaking, "1 is the first, 2 is
the second, and so on, and it cannot be otherwise".

That said, that point was just in the background: my actual question (I
won't repeat it in detail) was as "simple" as: what about lambda = [0,
lambda) vs. [1, lambda] (or, I think equivalently, [0, lambda]).


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.