Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

On Mar 9, 2:22 pm, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1173475290.749478.205...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

"MoeBlee" <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 9, 12:19 pm, David Marcus <DavidMar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
On Mar 9, 9:42 am, David Marcus <DavidMar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

and it's widespread in basic mathematics;

Nonsense.

No, it is. I didn't say it is dominant, the majority. But it is
widespread. You can find it in a wide variety of books on general
mathematics.

I've looked, and I can't.

and it is consistent with other basic mathematical terminology;

Nonsense.

I showed it. You just dogmatically grunt, "nonsense".

The standard definition is more consistent.

Standard
terminology in basic abstract algebra, analysis, and (first
sememester) topology?

Exactly.

The function f ITSELF as a triple?

Exactly.

Please cite.

Already did, but apparently you don't know how to read normal math
books.

Thank you for that incompetently snide insult.

Merely a statement of fact. No crime to make a mistake, but to insist
that you are right when the mistake is pointed out...

Halmos is pretty clear, but somehow you managed to misinterpret
what he wrote as support for your position.

Now you've really overstepped. Halmos says a function is a triple?!!!
No, Halmos says a function is a certain kind of RELATION. Go back and
read:

"A function from X (or on) X to (or into) Y is a RELATION [...]:
[emphasis added]
And look at page 48 where he gives a TEST for functionhood, which is
not that a funciton is a certain kind of triple, but rather that a
function is a certain kind of relation.
Wow, you really are imperious! You directly contradict Halmos to claim
that he is adopting YOUR approach when it is EXPLICT that he is not.

The "to Y" is part of the definition.

So, where have you learned your math? Where did you go to school? What
courses have you taken?

You'll find my C.V at:

i_may_choose_not_to_answer_personal_questions_from_people_who_insult_me.co
m

Very amusing. But, I haven't insulted you.

I find certain of your comments to be insulting.

Considering that you insist
that you know what is standard practice in much of mathematics, your
background is relevant to the discussion.

And THERE you insulted my intelligence.

Not at all. Your experience and background are quite separate issues
from your intelligence.

Again, you are completely mixed up. I didn't say that my intelligence
was insulted because he is asking about my background. The reason he
insluted my intelligence is in the REST of what I went on to write
which apparently you couldn't even bother to read before replying to
the first sentence I wrote with the rest of context still not read by
you.

I haven't claimed that there even IS a standard definition in
mathematics for 'is a function'. I said that the definition I was
using is AMONG those that are found in math textbooks and that it is
the standard in set theory.

It is whether it is /the/ standard in set theory which is being
questioned.

No, because I am not claiming that my own personal knowledge is a
basis for you or anyone to see what is or is not a standard definition
in set theory. Just look at the books for yourself.

And I said that your 'the function is a
triple' is not a standard definition either.

It is a standard in some areas of mathematics.

Now THAT is a LOT better. NOW you're becoming a bit reasonable. I
can't say what is standard in certain particular areas of mathematics.
But I can see that the triples definition would suit a great many
toplogist, at least.

I have been STRENUOUSLY arguing that we can NOT expect to rope
mathematics into a standard definition of 'is a function'.

If that were all you were arguing there would be no argument

It is one thing I've been arguing, so there is no good reason for
Marcus to post rhetorical questions as if I had not been.

MoeBlee

.

Quantcast