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: WM's argument disassembled - If you are his student, please PLEASE comment here
Replies: 5   Last Post: Jul 25, 2014 12:21 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 549
Registered: 9/19/09
Re: WM's argument disassembled - If you are his student, please
PLEASE comment here

Posted: Jul 22, 2014 11:35 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 11:09:56 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>
>
> But this is not his position. He rejects as meaningless all set
>
> sequence limits. Yes, I know you concluded that WM accepts 3* based on
>
> other things he's said, but that's a very dangerous thing to do. To
>
> paraphrase Lewis Carroll, WM can believe a dozen contradictory things
>
> before breakfast. Set limits are (wrongly) thought by him to rely on
>
> completed infinity, so any problems that you can demonstrate using a
>
> set sequence limit (like the analogy above) will be an argument WM can
>
> use to bash them.
>
>
>

> > So logically speaking, if WM has a problem with cardinality based on
>
> > 1*, 2*, 3*, it seems like he should also have a problem with Areas,
>
> > Volumes, and other concepts as well.
>
> >
>
> > Unless... your point is that WM wouldn't be troubled because [n by
>
> > 1/n] re does not approach "an actual" line?
>
>
>
> Yes, because it would be an actual unbounded line, so it might approach
>
> it but it never becomes it. He might have a model of limits that allow
>
> the limit to be a real thing "attained", provided it is not unbounded in
>
> some way, but even that is in doubt. He might, for example, accept that
>
> the sequence of squares with sides 1-1/n *is* the unit square "in the
>
> limit", or he might not.
>
>
>
> Ages ago I had an exchange with him about whether 1/3 = 0.333... =
>
> sum{n->oo}[3*10^-n]. It was not clear whether the equality sign meant,
>
> to him, what it means to you and me. WM may, in fact, be a classical
>
> 0.999... = 1 denialist, except for the fact that his book states the
>
> above equality for 1/3, so he needs to work in a defence of that at the
>
> same time that he denies it. That's where the magic preface of the book
>
> comes in. It means he can claim that he does not really accept as true
>
> anything in the book that he subsequently would like to repudiate.
>
>
>
> Do you know the phrase "trying to nail a jelly to the wall"?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ben.


In my country, we have the phrase is "cutting water with a kitchen knife," though it's more in the context of a loving couple who is in dispute.

The point is different, but it expresses the same sentiment of futility.



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.