2 ms·
If we were arguing about bacon burgers then I would not argue from first principles. I would just invite you to a restaurant and show you a bacon burger. You'
by lisper 5y ago
If we were arguing about bacon burgers then I would not argue from first principles. I would just invite you to a restaurant and show you a bacon burger.
You're right that there is no formal definition of "number" but there is a formal definition of "natural number" and "real number" and "imaginary number" and "complex number" and "rational number" and integers and quaternions and octonians, all of which are kinds of numbers even though their names don't contain the word "number"). All of those different kinds of formally defined numbers collectively are what a "number" is. If you want to call that informal, fine, but that seems to me like a pretty tiny garnish of informality on top of a mountain of formality.
- threatofrain 5y ago> If you want to call that informal, fine, but that seems to me like a pretty tiny garnish of informality on top of a mountain of formality. Perhaps you forgot, but you decided that this sin of sprinkling a tiny garnish of informality was so circular and awful that you had to stop reading right there, and provide paragraphs of explanation as to how "number" is a formal concept. If you really thought this was just a tiny garnish of informality atop a mountain of formalism, then I don't know why this is the point you had to stop reading to warn people that this work sucks.
- lisper 5y agoBecause it's not the informality of the definition that's the problem, it's the circularity.
- bawolff 5y agoIf that's your definition of formal, then "thingy" is also a formal term in mathematics.