Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Discussion with WM - Frustration reaches boiling point (What
is not clear?)

Replies: 8   Last Post: Jul 5, 2014 11:16 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,214
Registered: 2/15/09
Re: Discussion with WM - Frustration reaches boiling point (What
is not clear?)

Posted: Jul 5, 2014 11:16 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 7/5/2014 11:50 AM, PotatoSauce wrote:
> On Saturday, July 5, 2014 2:32:03 PM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

>> As long as you'd agree:
>> 1) that's a definition
>> 2) there are others

> Of course. I was not suggesting otherwise.
> I do believe that certain definitions are more intuitive than others, but that's more of an opinion than actual mathematics.

>> 3) there are usual "counterexamples in topology"
>> a) definition of open and closed
>> b) vacuity of
>> c) contradictions in empty closures from non-empty


Thank you, then how can we reconcile
those definitions with other ad-hoc
(as they are) definitions that are as
naturally (un-)justified? Point being
here that the definitions have to be re-
iterated in the proofs to ward off what
otherwise (in as concise terms) is of
counterexamples (via definitions) in

Then, this has courtesy properties of
the numbers, then directly of the points
more or less as they are of topology,
that these definitions are basically localized.

There are extra features of the numbers and
in topology with point sets and etc. These
are relevant extra features and of course
where inherent and as of the fabric: real
features of the objects here of the mathematics.

So, in the sense of equal representation, how
do you most strongly _build_ his case? For,
surely as above if its equivocal then it's
irrelevant to some unequivocal fact. Point
being that what you'd share as conscientious
would be unequivocal, and not subject to any
defaults but of all the definitions.

Also you'd as well find it as much or more
clear that there are at least readers here
who wouldn't need that as an aid, and that
it's the realm of development, not instruction.

It's a point to be careful that you don't
find yourself un-conscientious, of the value
of conscience (again, here of mathematics).

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.