Re: Proposal: 6NF

"Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1161453465.477273.179760_at_e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brian Selzer wrote:
>
>> Since it is clearly possible to divide and subtract some pairs of natural
>> numbers such that the result is a natural number, what do you call those
>> relationships?
> Examples and behaviors do not make demonstrations. Idiot.

Sounds like a dodge to me.

>
>> Magic? Why is it said that N is not closed under
>> subtraction and that Z is not closed under division if those binary
>> operations, division and subtraction, are not conceptual relationships
>> that
>> transcend the definition of any single numeric domain? Or conversely,
>> why
>> is the operator "+" called addition in each of N, Z, Q, R and C? Is it
>> true
>> that if a number belongs to N it cannot also belong to R? Isn't the
>> integer
>> 5 equivalent to the rational number 5/1? Can you not add an integer to a
>> rational number? How about a real number to a complex number? If not,
>> then
>> what does the "+" mean in the complex number, 5 + 3i? Is 5 + 0i + 0 + 3i
>> meaningless?
> These must be the dummest questions I have seen in this thread...
>

Another dodge. You're very good at that.

>> The thing I consider moronic is supporting an argument by using a
>> definition
>> for a "value" that is clearly circular, that is, a value must be the
>> output
>> of a function. Is the input of that function, then, NOT a value? Are
>> the
>> elements of a set NOT values unless there is a function defined that
>> ranges
>> over that set?
>
> A value is by definition the predetermined output of a specific
> function be it a relation or any function. If you find such
> definition *moronic* then you are finding math *moronic*
>
> Not convinced, check
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28mathematics%29
>

Been there, but in their discussion of domains and codomains, they speak of input values and output values, so again, if a value is the output of a function, and a function is defined as a mapping between a set of input values and a set of output values, then clearly the definition is circular. If you can't see that, then perhaps you should go back to school.

> Besides, the fact of being by definition the output of some kind of
> transformation does not prevent it from being the input of another
> function.... DUHHHHHH!!
>
> If value B is defined as F(A) = B nothing prevents it from being an
> input for another function, say V that produces C and inputing...In
> such case, V(B) = C and therefore V(F(A)) = C
>
> There's nothing circular about that dumb ass, except in your confused
> mind....
>

So, if value B is defined as F(A) = B, then what is A? Is it a value? If it's a value, then it must also be the output of a function, and so on...and so on...and so on: either the chain of compositions is infinite (which is quite ridiculous) or the definition is circular. DUHHHHH!! Received on Sun Oct 22 2006 - 00:00:41 CEST