Re: Proof of ordered powerset
From: Dave Rusin (rusin_at_vesuvius.math.niu.edu)
Date: 03/21/05
- Next message: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z"
- Previous message: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: duality in physics, not tri-ality, implies that only Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometries exist and that Euclidean is not a geometry"
- In reply to: Jon Slaughter: "Re: Proof of ordered powerset"
- Next in thread: Jim Spriggs: "Re: Proof of ordered powerset"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 21 Mar 2005 20:23:17 GMT
>its like saying that sqrt(2) is finite, but what is sqrt(2)? well, if its
>1.414213.... then its infinite, but if its sqrt(2) its not? what if we are
>in base sqrt(2)?
This is why mathematicians clump together at parties, apart from
everyone else. It must be exasperating for non-mathematicians to face
these questions without hard-and-fast definitions that make all of
this instantly resolvable, but it's just as exasperating for
mathematicians to have to back all the way up to first principles and
explain the definitions. So They mingle together over there by the canapes
and We stand here by the drinks, until it's time to talk politics
or sports. Otherwise...
A. It's the number whose square is 2.
A. Well, that's a consequence of the intermediate value theorem.
A. It follows from the Completeness axiom.
A. Well, you could use Dedekind cuts or Cauchy sequences. You accept Q, first?
[And on it would go. We haven't even gotten to "is finite".]
dave
- Next message: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z"
- Previous message: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: duality in physics, not tri-ality, implies that only Riemannian and Lobachevskian geometries exist and that Euclidean is not a geometry"
- In reply to: Jon Slaughter: "Re: Proof of ordered powerset"
- Next in thread: Jim Spriggs: "Re: Proof of ordered powerset"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]