On May 10, 3:43 pm, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 12:13 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...@lausd.net> wrote: > > So this leaves me wondering -- can there be a "meaning_ful_" math, > > one that avoids the undesirable classical result? > Your namby-pamby babying of people who are too lazy to learn some > actual math
Just because something isn't classical math, it doesn't mean that it can't be "actual math."
> is an insult to every school-child, every student in > history who has struggled in math class.
In most math classes (at least up to undergrad level), one mainly learns about classical math. That doesn't mean that there isn't a nonclassical math distinct from what one learns in class.
> Grow up. Life is full of undesirable results. An earthquake leaves > thousands homeless is an undesirable result.
But in math, one can make an undesirable result go away simply by rejecting the axiom that implies it. For example, one can avoid Banach-Tarski by rejecting the Axiom of Choice. On the other hand, one can't wish away an earthquake simply by assuming as an axiom that the earthquake never happened.
I do believe that no mathematical theory can completely avoid _all_ undesirable results, but some results are less desirable than others, and it's up to each individual to decide for himself which axioms he (she) wishes to adopt.
> That one real number may have two different decimal representations is > not an undesirable results.