In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote: > On Saturday, 28 December 2013 22:53:38 UTC+1, Virgil wrote: > > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > email@example.com wrote: > > > On Friday, 27 December 2013 22:18:37 UTC+1, Virgil wrote:
> > > > > WM claimed: > > > > > 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.
> It is not a matheologically valid definition Then it is nvalid even in WM's wild weird world of WMytheology! --