Re: .9 repeating
- From: "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:04:06 -0400
lwalke3@xxxxxxxxx writes:
My labels "standard set theorist," "standard analyst," etc.,
is my effort to avoid the label "standard mathematician,"
which previously led to an argument on how "nonstandard
analysis" is still "standard mathematics." So a "standard
analyst" explicitly accepts standard analysis, as opposed to
nonstandard analysis.
Seems to me that you still lean too heavily on "accepts".
I've done some work in non-well-founded set theory (a long time ago),
as well as ZFC. Which theory do you think I accept? Because I need
to know if I'm standard or not. It's for a loan application.
(please be standard! please be standard! ... )
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"It's easy folks. Just talk about my approach to your favorite
mathematician. If they can't be interested in it, they've
demonstrated a lack of mathematical skill." -- James Harris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: .9 repeating
- From: lwalke3
- Re: .9 repeating
- Prev by Date: Re: Basic calculus problem - is this approach correct?
- Next by Date: Re: Prescribed distance function
- Previous by thread: Re: .9 repeating
- Next by thread: Re: .9 repeating
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|