Re: .9 repeating

lwalke3@xxxxxxxxx writes:

On Mar 18, 7:33 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@xxxxxx> wrote:
lwal...@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.
What sort of acceptance is this? You'd be hard pressed to find any
"standard analyst" who forcefully proclaims "I hereby reject
non-standard analysis" except perhaps in the sense of finding it
didactically unsound or mathematically barren.

OK, then. So it's better for me to say that standard analysts
find theories such as NSA or those with adjacent points to be
didactically unsound and mathematically barren -- so that's
why they prefer standard analysis. Better?

This claim is probably closer to the truth, since there may well be
some analysts who would say this.

But it's utter nonsense to think that this is a prevailing opinion
among real analysts. Just as it's asinine to think that, because I
was working in ZFA, I thought that the axiom of foundation was
mathematically barren (or vice versa).

You might as well claim that number theorists don't believe there is
any number between 0 and 1, or that working in the theory of rationals
is didactically unsound or mathematically barren. Most
mathematicians don't have this fixation with acceptance and rejection
of different theories.

--
"So yeah, do the wrong math, and use the ring of algebraic integers
wrong, without understanding its quirks and real mathematical
properties, and you can think you proved Fermat's Last Theorem when
you didn't." -- James S. Harris on hobbies
.

Quantcast