Re: SI Units Solicitation - Upgrade from comments

["Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <nospam@gsg.eds.com>]

Brian Rogoff wrote:
> 
> If Shmuel were aware of modern mathematics, he might know that all of "real
> analysis" could  be expressed in terms of other number systems (the
> hyperreals of nonstandard analysis or Conway's "surreal numbers", probably
> more) which include infinitesimals.

If Brian were aware of modern Mathematics, then he would understand the
difference
between an axiom system and a model of an axiom system. 

> Appropriating the term real for one limited set can be seen as an example of > numeric bigotry :-).

Frankly, I dislike the nomenclature, but it is centuries too late to
change it. I just object to mudying the waters by having to types of
real numbers and labelling only of them as REAL. That will make for real
fun nomenclature if you have to deal with complex data: do you want to
call Gaussian integers "COMPLEX INTEGER" and complex floating point
"COMPLEX REAL"?
 
> I really have no idea how you can make so many assumptions about what I
> know or believe. Perhaps you shouldn't assume that everyone who posts is
> uneducated in mathematics.

You made similar assumptions in your message, with less justification.
Why do assume that I haven't heard of Robinson?

> -- Brian

-- 

                        Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
                        Senior Software SE

The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers:
reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com,
user smetz. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org