|
|
On 3 Oct 2006 11:59:07 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>David C. Ullrich wrote:
>>>
>> Took me a minute to see how you got there from anything I'd said.
>> Two hints: (i) I didn't say that "counting" had no technical meaning,
>> I said that nobody had said that it did - the discussion was about
>> the meaning of "countable". (ii) Supposing that I _had_ said that
>> "counting" had no technical meaning in mathematics, it doesn't
>> follow that I'm claiming that nouns have no technical meaning.
>>
>> Not that any of that has anything to do with the fact that
>> your comment on how we must not lose sight of foundations
>> (in reply to a comment about how the everyday meaning of
>> a technical term is irrelevant) you're being very very funny.
>>
>> >That's cleared that up.
>> >Thankyou. How about adverbs?
>
>
>Witt. said something like, 'a 6 yr old child knows as much about the
>foundations of mathematics as Bertrand Russel'. In other words, the
>foundations remain publicly available.
Huh? You really have no idea what a non-sequitur is, eh?
The question was not whether foundations remain publicly
available. And the question was not whether your assertion
that we must not lose sight of the foundations was correct.
The question was whether insisting that the word
"countable" means exactly what the definition says
it means, no more and no less, constitutes "losing sight
of the foundations".
And of course the answer is that no it doesn't, and
suggesting that it does is hilarious. Today's hint:
The foundations of mathematics is not the same as
the etymology of the technical terms used in mathematics.
(In fact if anyone is losing sight of the foundations
it's someone who continually uses technical terms in
ways that are contrary to their technical definitions.
Ie, you.)
************************
David C. Ullrich
|
|