Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
- From: John Edser <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:11:10 -0400 (EDT)
Earle Jones <earle.jones@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I contend that the integer 1 is not a constant because
1) it remains infinitely divisible.
AND
2) Each infinite part can independently reverse across the equals sign
of mathematics allowing it to change from positive to negative.
In contrast to this the natural number 1 (which is not equivalent to the
integer 1) does represent a constant because it remains indivisible and
always positive. This most critical number remains undefined within
mathematics, i.e. it is only assumed....
*
John: It is not possible for me, or for anyone educated in science or
mathematics, to argue with you. You lack the discipline of education
and seem to feel free to make up definitions ("natural number 1" and
"integer 1" for example) to suit your rambling arguments.
Study. Learn first; teach later.
JE:-
The critical difference between natural numbers and integers was and
remains conventionally basic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number
I strongly suggest you actually use your computer connection to the
internet.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
.
- Prev by Date: Editorial: Of primordial genomes and cooperative kittens
- Next by Date: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
- Previous by thread: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
- Next by thread: Re: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|