Re: .9 repeating

lwalke3@xxxxxxxxx writes:

On Mar 18, 4:22 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
lwal...@xxxxxxxxx writes:
And so, I can now safely say that simplying insisting
1) is not grounds for being considered a "crank," but
those who insist on 2) are still "cranks."
If someone claims either that the reals already satisfy (1) and (2) or
that their new theory is the *right* theory and the theory of R is
wrong because, well, just because, then this is pretty good evidence
of crankery.

I don't believe that the standard reals satisfy (1) or (2).

Does MR? I can't be sure. Hughes has already tried asking
MR but has yet to receive a response.

Suppose I want a theory in which (2) is true. If the theory I come
up with isn't rigorous, then I'm called a "crank" for trying to pass
off a nonrigorous theory as rigorous. If the theory I come up with
_is_ rigorous, then I'm called "academically dishonest" for trying
to insert something that's not part of the original (standard)
theory in order to make a new theory.

Huh?

No, there's no academic dishonesty in proposing an alternative theory.

Did anyone call the first proponents of non-well-founded set theory
"academically dishonest? (Hint: no. Another hint: They might have
been called cranks if they had insisted that ZFA is right and ZFC is
wrong -- even though their theory is rigorous.)

Therefore, in no case can I ever post a theory in which (2)
is true, which will be acceptable to standard analysts. I
would either be a "crank" or "dishonest."

Utter bull*** and you know it.

Also, notice that I don't necessarily believe that the
theory of R is _wrong_ because (1) or (2) fail. I just
believe that a theory in which (1) or (2) holds has the
potential to be made just as rigorous as standard analysis,
but I won't have the chance to try.

Bull***. And I, too, believe that one could come up with a rigorous
theory satisfying both (1) and (2). I don't believe that it would be
a very good replacement for the real numbers, but I could be wrong.

Your martyr schtick is getting pretty old.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"You do know that after the get done with [outlawing] cigarettes,
they're gonna come after guns, right?"
-- AM talk radio host Mike Gallagher
.

Quantcast