Re: Interesting math
- From: ke10@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (K. Edgcombe)
- Date: 11 Jul 2007 11:13:55 GMT
In article <5fj0efF3cbci5U2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And I wouldn't be too sure about "it" knowing that "zero is
neither even nor odd" is nonsense: I teach computer science
to undergraduates, and a surprising number of the students are
confused on this very point.
Come back, Charles Riggs, all is forgiven. We did this one to death some years
ago.
Of course, it *is* actually a matter of convention and definition.
It just turns out that if you define "even" in such a way as to exclude
zero (which is perfectly possible), you have to keep making exceptions to
practically every subsequent statement you might want to make about even
and odd numbers. So it's unproductive and inelegant, rather than untrue.
The same sort of issue arises across all sorts of mathematics. Once you've
settled on a definition of "x", it will (if yu're lucky) become clear whether
some known object has the property "x" or not. There are plenty of properties
(evenness is not one of them) where there are two perfectly sensible and very
slightly different definitions in circulation, and the difficulty I have with
my computer science and maths students is persuading them that the difference
between two textbooks may not be a matter of one being right and the other
wrong.
Katy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Interesting math
- From: blmblm
- Re: Interesting math
- References:
- Interesting math
- From: Skitt
- Re: Interesting math
- From: blmblm
- Re: Interesting math
- From: Mark Barratt
- Re: Interesting math
- From: blmblm
- Interesting math
- Prev by Date: Re: from whence [WAS: Abuse of imbalance.]
- Next by Date: Re: VERY OT: Need help with recalcitrant Eudora
- Previous by thread: Re: Interesting math
- Next by thread: Re: Interesting math
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|