Re: Proposal: 6NF

Keith H Duggar wrote:

> I hold that 2 and 2.0 denote the /same value/. Thus whenever the
> value denoted by 2 is meaningful so is the value denoted by 2.0.
> Again, since they denote the same value.
So what!! You made all this fuss to state that 2.0 = 2...You are an idiot. A big one..

> Sure, I understand that we define and use structures wherein
> only whole numbers such as 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 etc have meaning. But,
> what bearing does this have on the claim that 1.0, 2.0, ...
> /denote the same values/ as 1, 2, ... ?
It'is a matter of representation. Domain of integers and reals intersect on the same values but they may each be expressed as the output of different transformation...I have written it but you just can't get...Idiot...Dumm ass...

> The phrase "elementary school" was a dig at VC's condescending
> language. That said, I would say that "common sense" by which I
> meant the basic reasoning and logical faculties that all of us
> /should/ possess, is not only relevant to mathematics it is the
> entire point of mathematics. In other words, the purpose of
> mathematics, the aim to which we employ it as a tool, is to
> abstract and perfect our basic reason, to clarify and codify our
> logic, to extend our faculty for thought beyond our concrete
> limitations. Mathematics that defies the most basic sense upon
> which it is founded has lost it's way.
Bullshit...There is no thing such as common sense in math except in axioms formulation. All you have demonstrated so far by stating that 2.0 = 2 is that you have the level of my little 5 year old nephew...What a brainless moron...

Yeah and by the way when you write *it is founded has lost it's way*, the correct grammatical rule is * it is founded has lost *its* way* Mister-I-correct-other-people's language-capabilities....(At least I do have the excuse that English is not my native language NOT you moron)....Why don't you just leave the board...Euh I mean the planet...Eu I mean the galaxy...and go play fascist overlord with little bad bad aliens...

> > they are what they are, irrespective of whether a layman can
> > relate them to anything that seems familiar to the layman.
>
> Certainly I agree there are mathematical structures beyond the
> comprehension of some or many us. However, the concept of the
> number 2 or 2.0 is not such a structure.
Especially beyond your comprehension You FRAUD...There is nothing complex in such definition...

> Keith -- Fraud 6
>
> PS. I really enjoyed reading your post. It was a refreshing
> change from C'mode and VC. And, it would be great if you replied
> again. I'm particularly interested in what you think regarding
> the purpose of mathematics as a human tool.
It won't be much help for you...On both a human and mathematical level, you are simply a disaster... Received on Sun Oct 22 2006 - 12:10:42 CEST