... times-table. Later, we saw numbers neatly boxed-up in logarithmic tables and - as if through some natural, innate ordering property - lined up on calculator screens. Numbers are not countable. They are neither isolable nor individual objects. The term 'numbers', 'a number', 'all' numbers, etc., are arithmetically inadmissable, even if they are grammatically par for the course...
... times-table. Later, we saw numbers neatly boxed-up in logarithmic tables and - as if through some natural, innate ordering property - lined up on calculator screens. Numbers are not countable. They are neither isolable nor individual objects. The term 'numbers', 'a number', 'all' numbers, etc., are arithmetically inadmissable, even if they are grammatically par for the course...
..., and times-table. Later, we saw numbers neatly boxed-up in logarithmic tables and - as if through some natural, innate ordering property - lined up on calculator screens. Numbers are not countable. They are neither isolable nor individual objects. The term 'numbers', 'a number', 'all' numbers, etc., are arithmetically inadmissable, even if they are grammatically par for the course.
...quoted text - - Show quoted text - They gotten as far as the West had, prior to the twentieth century. So they knew about the existence of countable and uncountable sets and could prove line segments to be uncountable? That's really impressive. -- Alexey Romanov- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - They knew about ...
....- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - They gotten as far as the West had, prior to the twentieth century. So they knew about the existence of countable and uncountable sets and could prove line segments to be uncountable? That's really impressive. -- Alexey Romanov- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - They knew about sets, ...
...impressive.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - They gotten as far as the West had, prior to the twentieth century. So they knew about the existence of countable and uncountable sets and could prove line segments to be uncountable? That's really impressive. -- Alexey Romanov- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - They knew about sets, subsets, unions...
... didn't get that far, they didn't have much. 1. Though that would have been pretty impressive.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - They gotten as far as the West had, prior to the twentieth century. So they knew about the existence of countable and uncountable sets and could prove line segments to be uncountable? That's really impressive. -- Alexey Romanov
... Art wrote: On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:41:56 +0100, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote: A problem of addition can be summarised thus 1) To be countable, elements must be alike. 2) Elements that are indistinguishable cannot be counted. Huh? If there are many items of fruit sitting on a table, we can count all the fruit on the table ...
... mathematics. Mathematics is no more than a 'measure'. Premise [1]: 1) To be countable, elements must be alike. The premise is an 'ontological' stipulation b/c of the phrase- 'must BE... they are not contiguous, and that is true. But if it is an organic unity, it is countable as ONE. On the face, both statements seem true. Counting is an impossibility....
On Aug 17, 6:41 am, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote: A problem of addition can be summarised thus 1) To be countable, elements must be alike. 2) Elements that are indistinguishable cannot be counted. Easy, both statements are false.
