Date: Sep 24, 2017 10:47 AM
Author: Conway
Subject: Re: 0 = 1
On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:19:14 AM UTC-5, Peter Percival wrote:

> Dan Christensen wrote:

> > On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 12:41:43 PM UTC-4, FredJeffries

> > wrote:

> >> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 9:10:59 AM UTC-7, Dan

> >> Christensen laid down the law:

> >>

> >>> If you cannot formally define these concepts of yours purely in

> >>> terms of the symbols of logic and set theory (or some

> >>> equivalent), it isn't mathematics.

> >>

> >> That's ridiculous. You have just chauvinistically declared the

> >> mathematics of thousands of years and hundreds of cultures to be

> >> "n[o]t mathematics"; not to mention all of the experimental and

> >> not-yet-formalized current research; not to mention all of the

> >> checkbook balancing done by millions of people who never saw a

> >> "symbol of logic" in their lives.

> >

> > Ordinary arithmetic (2+2=4, etc.) was formalized some time ago. So

> > too has algebra, calculus, differential equations, etc. As for

>

> Where have differential equations (a hell of a big subject!) been

> formalized...

>

> > "experimental" research, it will always be just a preliminary work

> > until it can be axiomatized.

>

> ... in the sense of axiomatized? Indeed, what would it mean "to

> formalize" differential equations? That an equation and some axioms are

> put into a box, shaken well, and out pop the solutions?

>

> > I really have to admire those have staked their careers on such

> > speculative ventures, hacking their way through tractless

> > mathematical jungles, but failure is real possibility. But I guess it

> > wouldn't be very exciting otherwise!

> >

> >

> > Dan

> >

> > Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com Visit my

> > Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

> >

>

>

> --

> Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain

> to me what you really mean.

> I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is

> to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan

Peter well said. Not to mention that an AXIOM by definition can NOT be proven. It is by definition a self inherent truth. I mean...numbers are composed of space and value is a self inherent truth. There is no way to prove this. Such as there is no way to prove the multiplicative identity of property of zero...it just is......yet Dan cant seem to function without linear formal logic....I almost think he is a bot.