Re: Proposal of Motion 6, version 3

[John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dominique and all

On 24 Jul 2009, at 16:47, Dominique Lohez wrote:
> The main  problem with this motion lies in the fact that it deals  
> as as single package
> of  two [too] many questions
I am well aware that this may be seen as a problem. However, what is  
controversial to one person may not be so to another. So I feel it is  
better if other people beside the proposer (me) come to a consensus,  
during the discussion period, on what questions would usefully be  
handled as separate motions. What I would hope is that each such  
motion has a "champion" who is responsible for drawing up its wording  
and submitting it.

> In my opinion, despite   the multiple   references the  discussion  
> of level   1  is not conformant to the motion 3.
> In particular while +/- infinity are not number they are handled as  
> numbers
Dominique, this is a matter of fact, not of opinion. Please list for  
me, with your reasons, those assertions, definitions etc. in motion 6  
and its rationale that handle +/- infinity as numbers, or in any  
other way do not conform to motion 3.

Best wishes

John Pryce