On Thursday, September 19, 2013 11:54:54 AM UTC-4, Peter Percival wrote: > Dan Christensen wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, September 19, 2013 9:31:44 AM UTC-4, Rotwang wrote: > > > > > [...] it's worth > > > bearing in mind that time we had every textbook and web page about > > > category theory rewritten after you sort-of read the introduction to a > > > wiki page on the subject and decided that the conventional definition of > > > morphism was wrong. And then we had them all changed back again a couple > > > of weeks later, when you learnt a bit more about the subject and decided > > > that the definition was right after all. Remember that, Dan? I mean, as > > > far as we can tell it only cost the world a few thousand man-hours and > > > several hundred acres of rainforest that had to be cut down to provide > > > the paper for all those new editions, but the full repercussions may not > > > be known for some time. > > > > No reply Dan? And there was the episode about the definition of the > > first order theory of groups. >
I can see that, for some reason, you are keen to change the subject, Percy.
I suggest you post the links so that interested readers can see my reply on these other topics for themselves.
While you are at it, let's see your proof of 0^0=1.