|
|
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.
I wonder if you could possibly be more supercilious and condescending
even when you're wrong. I mean you might have just noted that general
mathematical usage of the word "integer" assumes both positive and
negative. Instead you go out of your way to patronize every critical
non mathematical thinker by saying that non mathematically trained
thinkers don't grasp the importance of each and every word they use.
In other words you're being contemptibly chicken shit and I don't mind
saying so. I'm beginning to suspect mathematical training insofar as
critical use of each and every word is concerned in the context of
modern math set analysis is primarily devoted to the rhetorical art of
sneer tactics rather than any conceptual integration of mathematics.
~v~~
|
|