Comments on: Once more on Devlin (but not on teaching) http://jd2718.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/once-more-on-devlin-but-not-on-teaching/ Education, Math, Teaching, New York, Bronx, Union, Language, Travel Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:03:43 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Joshua Fisher http://jd2718.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/once-more-on-devlin-but-not-on-teaching/#comment-39858 Joshua Fisher Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:36:18 +0000 http://jd2718.wordpress.com/?p=1190#comment-39858 Nope. Still wrong. Merry Christmas! Nope.

Still wrong.

Merry Christmas!

]]> By: Joe Niederberger http://jd2718.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/once-more-on-devlin-but-not-on-teaching/#comment-39146 Joe Niederberger Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:58:26 +0000 http://jd2718.wordpress.com/?p=1190#comment-39146 If you don't question his math, its because you haven't tried to pin him down and get his (yes, very stubborn and) absurd replies. When asked point blank whether, restricted to integers only, and under the condition that one can say that function F *is* G iff. for every integer x, F(x) = G(x), and we give F as the usual (if informal) "repeated-addition" definition, and "G" is his ethereally defined "multiplication" - well, under those conditions, can one not say that "multiplication" *is* "repeated-addition". Well, guess what. Devlin says - no, absolutely false. Absurd. If you don’t question his math, its because you haven’t tried to pin him down and get his (yes, very stubborn and) absurd replies.

When asked point blank whether, restricted to integers only, and under the condition that one can say that function F *is* G iff. for every integer x, F(x) = G(x), and we give F as the usual (if informal) “repeated-addition” definition, and “G” is his ethereally defined “multiplication” – well, under those conditions, can one not say that “multiplication” *is* “repeated-addition”. Well, guess what. Devlin says – no, absolutely false.

Absurd.

]]>