Well, as I tried to point out, I have a tough time understanding nonstandard math. The actuality of infinities seems to have been handled by Cantor and infinitesimals seem to have been fully justified by Conway and Robinson. But I don't understand much about *how* they built up that infrastructure.
Whether the output of division is different from its input or identical to its input doesn't prevent me from applying the function. As I said, it's similar to 1. If I divide X by 1, I get X. So, X is clearly "divisible", even if it has no "parts" ... whatever "part" might mean ... to you or Euclid. >8^D On 7/23/20 9:48 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > Can you unpack that in the light of Euclid's definition of a point, to whose > authority I presume Frank was deferring/invoking. > > I'm curious if this is a matter of dismissing/rejecting Euclid and his > definitions in this matter, or an alternative interpretation of his text? > > αʹ. Σημεῖόν ἐστιν, οὗ μέρος οὐθέν. 1. A point is that of which there is > no part > > I'm always interested in creative alternative interpretations of intention > and meaning, but I'm not getting traction on this one (yet?) -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
