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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 LudovicoVan Posts: 4,165 From: London Registered: 2/8/08
Re: Matheology § 288
Posted: Jun 20, 2013 7:11 AM

"Alan Smaill" <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:fwehagtm58s.fsf@eriboll.inf.ed.ac.uk...
> "Julio Di Egidio" <julio@diegidio.name> writes:
>> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message
>> news:C6KdnZCccIjltVzMnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>

>>> "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
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]).

Julio

Date Subject Author
6/20/13 Alan Smaill
6/20/13 LudovicoVan
6/21/13 LudovicoVan
6/21/13 Tanu R.
6/21/13 LudovicoVan
6/21/13 Tanu R.
6/21/13 LudovicoVan
6/21/13 Tanu R.
6/21/13 fom
6/21/13 LudovicoVan
6/22/13 fom
6/22/13 fom
6/22/13 fom
6/21/13 Tanu R.