In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote: > On Friday, 27 December 2013 22:18:37 UTC+1, Virgil wrote: > > > Only in matheology numbers can be believed to exist without being > > > individualized.
> > If WM claims that "individualizing" numbers is so central to all > > mathematics, WM should certainly be able to provide some standard formal > > definition of what "individualizing" a number consists of, AND show that > > that definition is widely accepted in mathematics.
> A number has been individualized if the due information can be transmitted > and the receivers can understand what is meant.
That is not a mathematically valid definition, so, like the rest of WM's mathematically invalid nonsense, is of no usefulness in mathematics.
That is seems to be of use to WM in the delusions of his his wild weird world of WMytheology is irrelevant to mathematics. --