Drregaleagle Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 I think you guys are the only Platonists who can't distinguish between a methodological abstraction and a claim about reality. When have I done that? By the way, what makes me a Platonist? The fact that you consider me a Platonist seems to suggest that you consider numbers and mathematical operations and objects to be uninstantiated Platonic universals. This is not the case. The laws of mathematics are instantiated universals. They really exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 Would you refer me to an authoritative Objectivist text in which it is claimed that 1 is not .999...?Why would I, when the question is completely ill-formed and irrelevant to the purpose of this forum?the plain ordinary mathematics I'm referring to does not depend on such a contextSpecifically, it depends on the denial of that context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmarksvillian Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 (edited) Why would I, when the question is completely ill-formedIt's not ill-formed. Anyway, take it in general form: Would you mention an authoritative Objectivist text that addresses the subject of 1 and .999... or anythihng closely related to it? it depends on the denial of that context. No it doesn't. One doesn't have to affirm or deny the notions in your post just to do ordinary mathematics. Whether or not you consider the mathematical theorem: 1 = .999... to violate some notion of identity is up to you. In the meantime, the equation is well understood to say that 1 and .999 are the same number (also that '1' and '.999...' name the same number), is rigously proven in mathematics, and not even a controversial matter in ordinary mathematics. Edited July 27, 2010 by Schmarksvillian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 27, 2010 Report Share Posted July 27, 2010 Would you mention and authoritative Objectivist text that addresses the subject of 1 and .999... ? If you can show that there is a reason to. In the meantime, I want to emphasize the most important point, that the purpose of this forum is to discuss Objectivist philosophy, and it is not a general purpose mathematics board. Posts are supposed to have some redeeming value w.r.t. Objectivism. The initial question has been answered, and we most (if not all) grasp the difference between a formal mathematical proof versus a philosophical principle. Ontological equivocations over "=" versus "is" or measurement concepts such as the palpably valid concept "one" versus the technically admissible ".999..." are possible at this point only via deliberate evasion, which is not a productive use of bandwidth. Since there is nothing new to add and all I see is dogged contravention of the purpose of the forum, I'm closing this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts