Re: Weierstrass
From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 07/09/04
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: sci.math trolls: Robin Chapman is the British version of David C. Ullrich"
- Previous message: Oscar Lanzi III: "Re: Dirichlet problem"
- In reply to: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Weierstrass"
- Next in thread: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Weierstrass"
- Reply: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Weierstrass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:42:19 +0200
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> writes:
> David W. Cantrell wrote:
>
>
>> I suspect I do: Eric Weisstein wrote "strangely" because the words "open"
>> and "closed" _seem_, based on their extramathematical meanings, to
>> contradict each other.
>
> Isn't the mathematical meaning: Zero is included as well as
> excluded?
Included and excluded in what? How would that be the meaning?
> This is exactly what I am trying to suggest for any infinitely precise
> real, not just for zero. If a frontier stone of zero dimensions is
> immediately surrounded by infinitely much of very similar stuff, then
> its removal or the opposite does not matter at all. I suspect: Included
> and excluded do contradict in mathematics too, unless they refer to
> something infinitesmal small.
Maybe you should look at fuzzy set theory and see if work done on
fuzzy representations of R satisfy your intuitions.
-- Meaningless movies on the screen behind the band that's blowing Waterboys, throwing shapes "My Love is My Rock Half of the music is on tape in the Weary Land"
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: sci.math trolls: Robin Chapman is the British version of David C. Ullrich"
- Previous message: Oscar Lanzi III: "Re: Dirichlet problem"
- In reply to: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Weierstrass"
- Next in thread: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Weierstrass"
- Reply: Eckard Blumschein: "Re: Weierstrass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|