Sujet : Re: Replacement of Cardinality
De : FTR (at) *nospam* nomail.afraid.org (FromTheRafters)
Groupes : sci.logic sci.mathDate : 16. Aug 2024, 11:08:19
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Peripheral Visions
Message-ID : <v9n8ep$1d89t$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User-Agent : MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
on 8/15/2024, Chris M. Thomasson supposed :
On 8/15/2024 3:59 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 16.08.2024 um 00:51 schrieb Jim Burns:
On 8/15/2024 3:37 PM, Moebius wrote:
Am 15.08.2024 um 21:28 schrieb Jim Burns:
>
Defining ⅟? to be the smallest unit fraction
isn't a claim that ⅟? exists.
>
You need an existence proof [...]
BEFORE stating a/the proper definition.
>
Proving that [a unique] mimsy borogove exist[s]
before defining [the] mimsy borogove
seems like a pretty steep hill to climb.
No mater what you think, in math we HAVE TO climb this hill, and we do.
That's a hill which I doubt we need to climb.
Fuck you, asshole. Want't to be the the next crank in sci.math? (After all the other cranks have left?)
>
Wrt sqrt(2), afaict anytime we create a unit square, we have the sqrt(2) in all of its irrational infinite glory as a diagonal.
Every time we 'create' a circle we have Pi as a transcendental number too. That is not the same as having a mathematical system to work with irrational and/or transcendental numbers in Q, so we imagined R to fill the 'gaps' in Q and we're golden.
Re: Replacement of Cardinality
Re: Replacement of Cardinality