RWW:
Thanks for your perspective which I agree with. It seemed strange that
the thread had descended to pedantic semantics without acknowledging
that lots of folks (mathematicians) have been down these roads before.
I also recall the New Math era when we actually taught about number
systems using words like "embed", "extend", "isomorphism", "equivalence
class", et al. What math folks did then in trying to get the world to
think exclusively in their terms without considering history, sociology,
and context of where "most folks" use math was screwy. (As Tom Lehrer
said: it's improtant to understand how to do the problem, RATHER than to
get the right answer.)
OTOH, it seems to me that quibbling about "and or not to and", again
without considering the context and the application, is just as futile
and doomed only to be considered important by math teachers. The beauty
of math, the part which makes it appealing to lots of thinking people
besides us, lies in getting answers to problems or putting problems in
new contexts, NOT in debating the foundations.
geo
****************************************************************************
* To post to the list: email mathedcc@archives.math.utk.edu *
* To unsubscribe, send mail to: majordomo@archives.math.utk.edu *
* In the mail message, enter ONLY the words: unsubscribe mathedcc *
* Words in the Subject: line are NOT processed! *
* Archives at http://archives.math.utk.edu/hypermail/mathedcc/ *
****************************************************************************