Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

MoeBlee wrote:
On Mar 9, 9:31 am, David Marcus <DavidMar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
On Mar 8, 6:55 pm, David Marcus <DavidMar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
(3) Let a function be a triple <D C f>.

(3) it is.

You just keep asserting. I don't claim that you can't find such a
definition in some advanced areas of mathematics (I always said there
is all kind of terminology out ther). But please show me basic
textbooks in abstract algebra, analysis or topology that claim a
function is a triple.

All the ones that I listed in my previous post do exactly that, if you
know how to read a normal non-formal math book.

First, I ask you to read my post before responding to it line by line.
For example, I ask you not type your response to the first of the
following paragraphs before you're read the second too. (You might do
that anyway; I'm not suggesting that you don't.)

I always reread my entire post before posting it.

<< Lots of repetitive stuff snipped. I'll try not to repeat myself. >>

What is at issue is that you arrogate that YOUR interpolation must be
standard, even though your INTERPOLATION is explicitly inconsistent
with a good many texts and inconsistent with how those texts handle
the matter in later parts of the book (e.g., see McCarty on topology
in which he speaks of the function f:x->y then goes right ahead to
speak of f itself as the function, not the function being <f x y> or
whatever).

"f" is the name of the function. If people write "f: X -> Y", then they
don't also give a name to the set of ordered pairs. Why should they? It
seems that you are reading "f: X -> Y" to mean "(X,Y,f)". That's not
what it means. It means "f = (X,Y,S)", at least if we are fomalizing our
mathematics in set theory.

--
David Marcus
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... most of the standard axioms would get scrapped ... you claim that set theory is ... theory in which to express virtually all of mathematics. ... S (call this function 'omega pre S'). ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
    ... What I mean is set theory was not born just by the great thought of Cantor. ... of mathematics behind, which help greatly, and which even where necessary for the theory to be imagined. ... formalization, at a level up, for meta-theory. ... scientists and engineers doesn't have to be used by engineers. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
    ... What I mean is set theory was not ... >> prove only the mathematics we set out to prove and not statements about ... >> formalization that does not compromise the other criteria. ... >> or show a formalization that does not compromise the other criteria. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Das Kalenderblatt 090921
    ... as the appropriate foundation for modern mathematics, ... and set theory itself, ... Unter einer „Menge“ verstehen wir jede Zusammenfassung M von ... Die Existenz von R baut sich auf die " Dedekind'schen Schnitte " auf - ...
    (de.sci.mathematik)
  • Re: Kuratowski Ordered Pair
    ... notions of temporality and things like that, ... operation and mathematics seems to do just fine with the Kuratowski ... definitions are offered by detractors of the Kuratowski definition? ... Fromout set theory ...
    (sci.math)