> > What you are > > saying is EXACTLY what I and others have been saying. When I and others say > > or allude to the fact that mathematics existed before the dawn of time
Actually he is quite correct. You are imposing a human element to natural occurances, which is erroneous. You are speaking about a completely separate issue of 'concepts' and 'measures', a human invention. Prime numbers are also a subject of debate in space. We 'coin' a term that exists and was discovered, and also relates to things beyond our world, hence before we had knowledge of it. > Sorry, Bob, but I'm with Dr. Don on this one. What he's said about six times > is perfectly correct and I think you're the one not getting it. Mathematics > is a human invention and a late one. It hasn't "existed since the dawn of > time." How did it exist? Were there dinosaur math professors? It's a human > invention, practiced by humans, and it's evolving--it's a hell of a lot more > advanced right now than it was fifty or a hundred years ago, never mind > since the dawn of time. What, was differential calculus just out there on > the savannahs waiting for the Neanderthals to discover it? > > What you're saying makes no more sense than saying that carburetors have > existed since the dawn of time. Or scissors, or opera. > > --Mike > >
