off topic but please forgive me me and answer

[Mensanator]

On Apr 3, 10:17 am, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:43:41 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
> > I am replying to this post not because I disagree but because it
> > postalogically  fits the best (I am by no means an expert either).
>
> > IMHO, the crackpot in this regard is actually partially right,
> > multiplication does mean that the number must get bigger, however for
> > fractions you multiply four numbers, two numerators and two
> > denominators. The resulting numerator and denominator by this
> > multiplication get indeed bigger.
>
> But you're not multiplying four numbers,

You are if you're using Rationals.

> you're multiplying two numbers.

Because they're expressed as Decimals.

> One-half is not "two numbers",

Sometimes it is.

> that would be a tuple

Like this?

>>> gmpy.mpq('0.5')
mpq(1,2)


> or a list or
> possibly a coordinate pair. One-half is a single number,

When dealing with crackpots, it does not help to use the
wrong arguments. When multiplying gmpy.mpq(2,3) by gmpy.mpq(2,3),
the numerator and denominator have both indeed gotten bigger.
The trick is that when combined, the overall result is smaller.

> the number which
> if you double it gives one.
>
> Fortunately multiplication is consistent. Multiplying the two numbers 0.5
> and 0.5 is exactly the same as multiplying 1*1 and 2*2 then dividing to
> get a single number. It's not the same as multiplying 1*1 and 2*2 to get
> two numbers, 1 and 4.
>
> You say that multiplication means that the number "must get bigger".

Yes, not in every case, but in many cases it does. You need to point
out that it is wrong EVEN IN THE CASES WHERE IT'S TRUE. It is a
Non Sequitur - it does not follow that a number must be bigger if
the numerator and denominator have each gotten larger.

>
> 5*1 = 5
> 5*0 = 0
> 5*-2 = -10
>
> I hope you won't try to argue that 5, 0 and -10 are all bigger than 5.

Yes, but these special cases don't help. It needs to be pointed out
that the argument is wrong even in cases like 2/3 * 2/3.

>
> There really is no point trying to dignify superpollo's friend's
> assertion on the basis of some technicality. His argument is no different
> from the argument that says that pythons are snakes, and therefore python
> can't be a programming language and this newsgroup can't possibly exist.
> Words can have multiple meanings, and meanings can shift. Multiply may be
> derived from a word which, once upon a time, meant to get bigger, but
> that's not what multiply means. I don't like to dismiss somebody I've
> never met, but on the basis of what superpollo says, yes, he's a crackpot.
>
> Either that or about age four. When I was four I strongly believed that
> "one hundred" and "a hundred" were different numbers. I argued (not very
> convincingly, but with great vehemence) to my teacher and my parents that
> you counted up to ninety-nine, then a hundred, a hundred and one, a
> hundred and two, ... a hundred and ninety-nine, *one* hundred.
>
> --
> Steven