Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 13 Jul 2005 02:23:42 -0700
Virgil wrote:
> If WM means an equilateral triangle, perhaps his imagination is
> deficient, but I have no trouble with imagining precisely equal sides
> for such a triangle.
>
> I can even draw a physical representation of one, using ruler and
> compass, with sides less than 1% different in length.
>
> But, of course, a physical representation is not the ideal any more than
> a numeral is actually the number it represents.
You cannot imagine any equilateral triangle (perhaps you can imagine to
imagine it). That is not hinting on deficient imagination, but it is
due to the function of human brain. If you pretend that you have no
trouble with imagining precisely equal sides for such a triangle then
you are in error, although you may not know it. Perhaps this defect of
critical self control is also responsible for your enthusiastic
admiration of set theory.
Regards, WM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Virgil
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- References:
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Virgil
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Jiri Lebl
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Jiri Lebl
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Jan de Vos
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Virgil
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Virgil
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- Prev by Date: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Next by Date: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Previous by thread: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Next by thread: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|