Re: Irrational numbers questions

In article <pb4nq21qee7pf5jc3l69nmkmnm14sjl8fl@xxxxxxx> ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:23:01 +0100, Han de Bruijn
<Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
....
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.

Let me spell it out for Han. If we have a things called foo and defined
that a nonfoo is a things that is not a foo, even constructivists would
know that a thing is either a foo or a nonfoo. It is when the double
negation comes in that the constructivist holds away. So for a
constructivist a non-nonfoo is not necessarily a foo.
--
*** t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~***/
.