[FRIAM] square land math question

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

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