Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

G. Frege wrote:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:42:07 +0100, Han de Bruijn
<Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think we've already agreed on taking _your_ definition als the working
one - you'd rather say "correct" one ...

Idiot, there is no "correct" one. It's just ONE possibility.

Is "idiot" relevant for a discussion about mathematics?

Is your presumption about what I'd "rather" say appropriate? The fact
that you put words in my mouth and pretended that I wanted them there
was pretty disrespectful and annoying.

When taken out of context, maybe. Remember that we (HdB - Hughes, Frege)
are in disagreement about the _correct_ness of standard mathematics in
general and ZFC in particular. That's where the scare quotes were meant
for in "correct". Suppose that we _can_ prove that ZFC is inconsistent,
then your definition automatically becomes nonsense. That's what I meant
to express. I've never had the intention to attack somebody personally.

Bad advertizing for mainstream mathematics as a _civilized_ activity,
again and again.

Somehow, I doubt that G. Frege is intending to advertise a damned
thing or that the "civilized" nature of mathematics is any more
relevant to this discussion than his use of the word "***".

Han de Bruijn

.

Loading