🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5nmcmf$jar$1...@unlisys.unlisys.net>, Wolfgang Schwanke
<wo...@berlin.snafu.de> writes
>Daniel J Adams <daniel@fuck.off.spammers> writes:
>
>>I fail to get your point. There was nothing saying that there were 17
>>trees in the forest before we learned to count but there were stil the-
>>concept-that-we-call-17 trees in the forest.
>
>You just got it :)
>Maybe it's a little more obvious when you realise that math is
>based on _arbitrary_ axioms and definitions (do we agree on that?).
>If they're arbitrary, they're not natural.
>
>The so-called "natural" numbers (who despite their name aren't)
>just happen to be _exremely_ intuitive, so they're a bad example
>to grasp. But how about such concepts as square roots, pi, or
>complex numbers? All invented.
>
Umm....the figure pi and the expression pi are human inventions, but the
number itself, or rather the concept itself existed beforehand. Right?
>Greetings
>
>wolfgang
>
>--
>Elektropost: wo...@techno.de | wo...@berlin.snafu.de         |       IRC: wolfi
>WeltweitesSpinnweb: | http://www.snafu.de/~wolfi/ | RealLife: Wolfgang Schwanke
>                  she said you're some kind of laughing stock
>              because you dance to disco and you don't like rock

   --------------------------------------------- ------------------
  |    Daniel J Adams                           |                  |
  |                                             |      Atheist     |
  |    http://www.kerbcrawler.demon.co.uk       |       #603       |
  |    kerbc...@earthling.net                |                  |
   --------------------------------------------- -----------------