Re: Irrational numbers questions

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:23:01 +0100, Han de Bruijn
<Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:

that constructivists reject the law of the excluded middle. So
I said that then construcitivists are wrong.

Uhm, constructivists, construcitivists, ... If your mathematics is as
accurate as your postings ...

Regarding the elaborate disclaimer: Typically if I saw someone
denying the law of the excluded middle I wouldn't just say he
was wrong. I'd say to myself that if he meant the same things
by all the words involved as I do then he's clearly wrong,
and I'd conjecture that in fact he had slightly different
definitions in mind, in particular I'd assume that he wasn't
really talking about what I think of as truth, but thinking
more of something I'd refer to as what we know to be true,
and referring to that as what's true for some reason.

Otoh, speaking to Han it seems silly to bend over backwards
to try to make sense of things, given his attitude towards
things he doesn't understand. Speaking to him, if he says
constructivists deny the law of the excluded middle then
fine, constructivists are wrong, period.

Perhaps what you mean is this: if HdB says something that is right then
it is nevertheless wrong, because HdB says it.

No. What I meant was this: If HdB says something that's obviously
wrong, so obviously wrong that if someone else said it one would
assume that he must simply be using a non-standard definition of
one of his words, there's no point in pointing that out - given
the fact that HdB has no interest in actually understanding what
others say, the most appropriate response seems to be simply
to point out that it's wrong.

Got it?

No. Even an idiot can speak the truth.

Han de Bruijn


************************

David C. Ullrich
.