Goliath

Chimp, I have had enough of your pointless links! Linguistics is NOT Mathematics!

EXPLAIN RIGHT HERE, RIGHT FUCKING NOW IN YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS WHY EVERY SET IS A NUMBER, OR RETRACT!!

Edit: Okay, perhaps that was a bit too harsh. Chimp, why do you think that you can make an argument for something by bringing up a useless link? Your links are not arguments, they are definitions for terms that have had very little to do with the discussion at hand.

To make an argument, you have to actually think and use your words. Give it a try.

My patience is done being worn thin with you.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Chimp

Mathematics IS a language. Numbers are symbols, representing concepts like position, magnitude, value, etc. Set theory is also a language, like mathematics. Sets are collections, obeying certain rules, in accordance with 2-valued logic.

There will be no retraction...

Goliath

No, it is not. Mathematics is done in a language.

Yes, they can represent those things. But numbers are NOT these things. They are NOT what they represent. Got it?


No, it is the study of results that follow from the undefined terms "set" and "object", the undefined relation "membership", and the Zermelo-Frankel axiom of set theory.*

No. Mathematics is NOT a set.

You have been proven wrong, regardless.

Sincerely,

Goliath

PS Please note and reply to the edit in my (as of now) penultimate post above.

* - Again, if you need to look up these words, fine, but do not post their definitions here, because I know what they mean. Do you have any idea how arrogant you appear when you do this? I constantly get the impression that, for example, you're saying "the complex numbers are such and such, because you're too stupid to figure this out yourself!". Please stop it.

(edited to fix a mistake)

Chimp

You appear to be floundering with this one Goliath. Mathematics communicates ideas, therefore mathematics IS a language, not a convienient ad-hoc definition for Goliath.


Numbers are abstract symbols, that is correct... The universe must be logically consistent, in the "numerical sense".


Set theory communicates ideas, therefore set theory is a language. You are refuted. Go to the back of the class...

You remind me very much of my clueless "calculus professors". Once I discovered they didn't even know what "non-standard" analysis was, I wondered what the hell eight years of college is good for? You know about non-standard analysis, right? I hope so.


Mathematics is a language and set theory is a language. An extension of these ideas via "meta-mathematics" is in order. Of course, you disagree?

Goliath

Then why is mathematics done in English, German, French, Italian, and Chinese?

Define exactly what you mean by this.

No, set theory is a branch of mathematics.

Only in your imagination, kid.

Again, I'm about to obtain a PhD in mathematics. What are your mathematical credentials? You didn't give them to me when I asked before. What are you afraid of?

Here's a hint: in most (if not all) universities, there is no such position as "calculus professor". Calculus is either taught by faculty (assistant, associate, full, or adjunct professors) or lecturers.

If the person teaching your calculus class was a lecturer, there's a good chance that they wouldn't. So what?

So you judge someone's mathematical knowledge by whether he/she knows about one particular branch of mathematics? Okay, you do know what Carlitz's theorem says about HFDs and Dedekind domains with torsion class group and a prime ideal in each class, right? I hope so.

Edit: And to answer your question, if by non-standard analysis you mean constructive analysis, then yes, I have had some exposure to it.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Chimp

1 + 1 = 2

is a simple statement. It may be translated into other languages but it is also a type of "universal" mathematical language statement.

http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/wiki.pht...ical_Languages

Goliath

Now you're assuming that mathematical statements are universal. Good luck proving that one, as philosophers of mathematics have been working on that for a couple of millenia now.

Even if I were to agree with your assertion of mathematics being a language (it's actually a meta-language), your argument still fails, as there are more sets than complex numbers.

Again, I'm about to obtain a PhD in mathematics. What are your mathematical credentials? You didn't give them to me when I asked before. What are you afraid of?

I'm going to bed. Unless you come up with something that is actually a logical argument, I doubt this conversation can serve much more of a purpose (save to irritate the both of us).

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Oh, and here's another thing that you refused to address:

So you judge someone's mathematical knowledge by whether he/she knows about one particular branch of mathematics? Okay, you do know what Carlitz's theorem says about HFDs and Dedekind domains with torsion class group and a prime ideal in each class, right? I hope so.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Chimp

Well, thanks for finally agreeing that mathematics is a "meta"-language...

Are you trying to say that your mathematical "schwartz" is bigger than mine?

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Goliath

I'm in bed, but still at the keyboard...

It's a meta-language, not a language like English, Chinese, et al.

No, I'm asking (for the third time) what your credentials are because you seem to be arrogant enough to think that you know more than many mathematicians, when in fact you've made it abundantly clear--as you yourself have admitted--that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Again:

1. What are your mathematical credentials?

2. What does Carlitz's Theorem say about HFDs and Dedekind domains with torsion class group and a prime ideal in every class?

Sincerely,

Goliath