Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 12:43:35 -0600
In article <1121246622.146621.167110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.
By what suernatural powers does WM assert that he can know what I can or
cannot imagine? If he supposes that because he cannot imagine something
that no one else can, he is even more unwarrantedly arrogant than his
previous posts have revealed. It is precisely the limited qualities of
his imaginative powers that have led him into this morass of
self-contradictions.
.
- 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
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- Prev by Date: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Next by Date: Re: Fundamental theorems of caclulus: which is which?
- Previous by thread: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Next by thread: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading