Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

In article <1173380461.990820.89810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 8, 12:28 am, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1173331550.422848.4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,





"MoeBlee" <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:02 pm, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1173311178.468962.119...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

"MoeBlee" <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 7, 2:53 pm, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This conversation is a ridiculous waste, Virgil. I just can't fathom
what is motivating you to dispute that there is a standard set
theoretic definition of 'a function'.

Perhaps it is the fact that among all the math texts and reference works
immediately available to me only, in only one, an early edition of
Apostol's Caluculus, have I been able to find a definition compatible
with yours.

Neither the Harper Collins Dictionary of Mathematics nor the Oxford
Concise Dictionary of Mathematics even allow it as an alterntative.

Therefore I do not accept your definition as the standard, but only, at
best, an acceptable alternative in some areas.

No, No, No, look what you did. You SWITCHED the argument. You said
that your argument is with my claim that it is the standard definition
in SET THEORY. I NEVER said it is the standard definition in general
mathematics.

Please, that was really specious of you just now. You said you
disputed my claim that it is the standard definition in SET THEORY,
then you switched to a strawman about mathematics in general.

MoeBlee

Even in set theory, I dispute it as /the/ standard.

I hope I can take it then that you won't continue your strawman about
it being a standard defintion in mathematics in general.

If there is a standard definition for math in general it is the one in
which distinct codomains produce distinct functions.

If there is a standard definition for set theory, I see insufficient
evidence to support your contention that it is not the same one.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
    ... It is your claim of its being the /overwhelmingly/ standard sense within ... set theory is what is at issue here, and is the only issue here.. ... why there should be even a need to "grant" freedom to use the STANDARD ... Whether it is /the/ standard definition, even in set theory, is a point ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
    ... You can find it in a wide variety of books on general ... that you know what is standard practice in much of mathematics, ... the standard in set theory. ... triple' is not a standard definition either. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: GCD(0,0)
    ... quasi wrote: ... > leaving the clear impression that was the standard definition. ... > makes the concepts of gcd clearer for the beginning student. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
    ... Concise Dictionary of Mathematics even allow it as an alterntative. ... that your argument is with my claim that it is the standard definition ... disputed my claim that it is the standard definition in SET THEORY, ... I dispute it as /the/ standard. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
    ... Neither the Harper Collins Dictionary of Mathematics nor the Oxford ... Therefore I do not accept your definition as the standard, but only, at ... I NEVER said it is the standard definition in general ... I dispute it as /the/ standard. ...
    (sci.math)