Mowk wrote:I agree.

I'm glad to hear that. But the rest of your post consists of disagreement with my point. I'll just respond if I may.

Mowk wrote:I

Math 'lets' it. Because it is agreeable.

Yes, I take that to be a good description of the pragmatic nature of math, which is after all a

contingent activity of human beings. Meaning that it's always in flux and never just one thing.

Mowk wrote:I

But the order of the notation has been lost.

There is no "order of notation." You seem to think that the notation .999... means something even before we've defined what it means?

If I am understanding you correctly, then please, I ask you, what is it that you think it means? Keep it simple for a mathematically brainwashed simpleton such as myself.

Mowk wrote:I

Abandoned for a "new" theoretical math.

It's perfectly true that the way we think about the real numbers has evolved over the centuries. That's perfectly normal, it's the same in any human endeavor. You seem to claim that there is an "old" and I presume "more true" math. If so please do your best to help me understand what you mean by that.

Mowk wrote: Counting from zero to infinity and beyond, within infinite sets, some grand and others infinitesimal.

That seems a little handwavy. If you don't hear the music maybe math's not your thing.

Mowk wrote:Doesn't get anymore philosophical then that.

Then it doesn't get philosophical at all, since you didn't say anything.

Mowk wrote: Slicing and dicing the infinite.

Actually not. Actually not!! What the modern mathematical formalisms do is beautifully finesse the issues of infinity and infinitesimals. That's the beauty of Newton's conception as it evolved over the next two hundred years. We can build up the entire edifice within a perfectly logical

finitistic context. If you will only grant the intuition you have of the counting numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., the rest can be built of iron-clad logic that a computer could verify.

That's the clever bit. We have these vague intuitions about infinity, and the mathematical formalism provides BETTER intuitions. It's a great achievement of humanity.

Mowk wrote:That'll take you places.

Like I say, if it's not your thing that's cool. But if you can verbalize what "order of notation" is being ignored by the mathematicians, what "inherent truth" you think is in the symbolism, please explain it to me.