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: There are no axioms or postulates in Greek mathematics, only in mythmatics.
Replies: 5   Last Post: Sep 28, 2017 1:40 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,472
Registered: 4/12/05
Re: There are no axioms or postulates in Greek mathematics, only in

Posted: Sep 28, 2017 1:30 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Probably statements like "The LIMIT doesn't give
a shit about infinity." by bird brain John Gabriel
show somehow that he still doesn't understand

the definition of a limit of a sequence, of
course does it need infinity, in the sense that
it is a statement that involves the natural numbers

Such statements pretty much show the
mathematical immaturity of JG. Further I guess
this "Newsflash: Division is a finite process.

It does not carry on forever." probably hints to
AP brain fartos infinity border?

Hey bird brain John Gabriel, they
need you in the choose cake factory,
they want you to make some pi.

j4n bur53 schrieb:
> A lot of text understanding has to do with things
> like "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957),
> Leon Festinger". Reading is making sense into texts.
> And you assume that the author, you assume this
> for a math author, that he doesn't give you an
> anyway false list of statememts.
> The much simpler example is this:
> 3 = 3/1
> We compare a rational number and a natural
> number. Strictly speaking the above statement
> is false, if we see ./. as an abbrevation
> for the usual pair construction of rational
> numbers, because N and N x N are usually disjoint,
> also equaivalence class from P(N x N) are disjoint
> to N x N. So implicitly we all the time move
> objects from one type to another. Otherwise we
> would just read non-sense.
> Jan Burse wrote:

>> would always give the truth value false. Typically
>> N -> R and R are disjoint, so if we have:
>> f : N -> R and x : R
>> Then a statement:
>> f = x
>> is automatically false.


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.