|
|
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:51:19 -0500, David Marcus
<DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Randy Poe wrote:
>> Lester Zick wrote:
>
>> > It doesn't? My mistake. So there's "no least real"
>>
>> There's no least real.
>>
>> > but a "least integer real"?
>>
>> There's no least integer.
>>
>> There's a least POSITIVE integer. Is there some reason you
>> keep ignoring the critical word POSITIVE?
>
>Conjecture: People not trained in mathematics don't realize that each
>and every word is important.
Conjecture: People not trained in logic don't realize the proposition
"least positive integers" and "no least positive reals" have mutually
exclusive implications unless properly qualified since each and every
word is critical and I daresay there are quite a few possibly infinite
unstated qualifications to every proposition. And if based on the
foregoing predicates alone you can assume integers are real I'm
certainly allowed to assume that the integers you're talking about are
positive since you're discussing them as "least" in relation to zero.
~v~~
|
|