Reply to Jurriaan
schaffer at optonline.net
Tue Jul 8 15:07:59 MDT 2003
> What the mathematician showed me about 0=2 in the 1970s, was NOT the
> type of "fallacy" to which you referred in your last post.
then i am out of ideas. between john enyang and jim craven and myself
you have some good examples. but they differ in character.
john's arithmetic is designed for 0 = 2. the stuff i sent it is not.
jim craven shows how the simpler basis of elementary algebra destroys
suggestions of magic.
here is a post i wrote after jim and i kicked this around several
years ago in a related context:
More information about the Marxism