>>36
I'm tired of responding to you. Your posts are a textbook example of the 'moving goalpost' fallacy, because you know that you're full of shit, and your only hope is to be so ridiculous that I can't answer you, so you can then use your backwards logic to feel that your entire line of argument is valid. I've tried to be civil and polite, but you're apparently just another textboard retard (or a troll).
Please, show us a physical entity, for description of which Lisp's list aren't flexble enough.
I am sick of you babbling about representing math with Lisp. Nobody cares.
Can you present us a physical experiment, which would prove that magnetic fields are infinite and continuous?
http://i.imgur.com/uLgRq.jpg
"can be" doesnt mean "should be". One can apply Biblical creation theory to physical situations.
Good luck getting anything useful out of that.
It is a language.
The symbols have meaning, and it's the meaning that's important. Anyone who doesn't realize this hasn't studied much math, and is therefore inadequate to judge math. If I write, "Hey, retard, that dog is going to bite you", which do you care about with respect to the word dog: your understanding of the implication of the word (a certain type of animal) or what the word looks like? Math notation is what it is because it's what other mathematicians use, and the running standard seems to be 'perversely concise.' LOL GROUPTHINK CONSPIRACY OMGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGG.
And, as language, it could be replaced by some easier and less vague language. Lisp, for example.
Sure, but you're still going to have to invent concepts in your language of choice to describe the situation. Unless you find something besides mathematical concepts to model the physical world, all you're going to do is change the syntax. Woohoo.
Actually, most of math is fantasy. When one says that reality is "continuous", one talks about his beliefs, not what one really knows.
I have no idea what you're saying or what point you're trying to get across.
And the whole modern science is build on a vague concept?
Yes. It's a giant conspiracy. All of science is wrong, and you are right. Science has secretly been plotting in the background, hoping you wouldn't notice. The electricity you're using to post doesn't actually exist, the chemicals used to make your the case of your computer are actually the bi-products of witchcraft, and if you look at a cellphone's '9' key on a rainy Saturday at 0613 GMT, you'll see a pentagram with an infinity symbol inside. This is symbolic of Nancy Grace's vagina, a.k.a The House of Nergal, a.k.a. Hell.
Why can't one go some other way, and devise Calculus without infinity? You don't need infinity to count physical quantities.
I'm fairly certain you actually can . Since you obsess over lame semantic bullshit, I'm surprised you didn't notice that I said 'useful', not 'necessary.'