Re: Proposal: 6NF

Marshall wrote:
> On Oct 21, 9:57 am, "Keith H Duggar" <dug..._at_alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > You have to construct all the real numbers and prove that
> > > 2 is an element of the set.Any mathematical number construct that fails to equate 2.0
> > and 2, fails to model our most basic common sense or
> > "elemntary school" concept of the number 2.
>
> Nicely put! I kept trying to come at it from various oblique angles,
> but you just hit the nail on the head directly.

If your hard trying brought you to the obvious *La Palisse* conclusion that 2 = 2.0 and that you consider that an achievement from that idiot of Keith, that says how dumb you indeed are...

What else to expect from somebody who actually has been putting in doubt the equation of 3 (symbol) and the value 3(Yeah, Yeah I remember) . A little reminder of your nonsense...

//In strict English grammar, we would say "3" is the mathematical symbol representing a number value. But 3 is not the same thing as "3". 3 is the actual number; the successor to 2, *not* the glyph. "3" is a real thing, because symbols *do* appear in the natural world. You see them on pages of math books all the time. But is 3 a real thing, the way horses are real and unicorns are not real? //

VC should not get impressed with such bullshit self congratulatory attitude typical of Frauds... Received on Sat Oct 21 2006 - 20:38:59 CEST