[rsj_hn]

Continuity is just a formal property. I'm not sure if it is "profound", that's more of an emotional response, which is very personal.

Mathematicians use words like "deep" to describe properties that are useful in many branches of math. Is continuity deep? I think what's deep is the notion of compactness and the essence of compactness is open covers and finite subcovers, so the deep idea really is about epsilons and deltas and not handwaving about "what it really means" to be continuous.

For ruminations on what things "truly mean", you are not going to find that in a math book. Perhaps a philosophy book would better scratch that itch for you. Math is self-contained and provides its own meaning in terms of the relationships between formal properties and precise answers to precise questions. Some people truly love exploring the relationships between formal properties and discovering the answers to difficult questions that reveal new logical structures. If that is not interesting enough for you, perhaps you will get more satisfaction studying a different field.

[javajosh]

Any statement about infinity is not something you can check directly, by hypothesis. The powerful influence of social proof cannot and should not be ignored. There are too many smart people who don't know anything about the foundations of mathematics, and believe that there aren't any consistency issues.

My point is that as a practical matter, they're right. Calculus works really well. But consider for the moment the question of why you are convinced that induction is valid. There is no proof of induction's validity. The epsilon delta thing is a definition, not a proof, and serves, effectively, to invert infinity into an infinitesimal. I am on firm ground with these statements, like it or not.

I agree there's little to be gained examining what things really mean when it comes to meaning itself - it is always going to be circular. I believe that the foundations of math lay primarily in its utility, and secondarily in the social fabric of experts (which may or may not be related to utility). The eerie, beautiful way in which math describes the world is fundamentally a human phenomena, and it's based on aesthetics, not logic. I suppose my objection is simply that one shouldn't go around thinking that the epsilon delta definition removes the ambiguity and messiness that actually underlies mathematics.

[rsj_hn]

> But consider for the moment the question of why you are convinced that induction is valid. There is no proof of induction's validity. The epsilon delta thing is a definition, not a proof, and serves, effectively, to invert infinity into an infinitesimal. I am on firm ground with these statements, like it or not.

I'm afraid these statements are a mishmash of some correct and incorrect statements, and a logical argument like that is considered incorrect.

* Yes, the definition of limit is a definition.

* The definition of limit has nothing to do with induction or infinity. I'm honestly baffled why these three distinct concepts are being conflated.

* For well ordered sets, induction is just reductio ad absurdum in which you assume the smallest element does not satisfy a condition and then show this to be incorrect because the next smallest element must meet the condition and it's satisfication means the next larger element must meet it as well. There is a valid question as to whether every set can be well-ordered, which is an axiom, but for countable sets, which is where virtually all induction arguments are used, no axiom of choice is needed to use induction-style arguments.

* The statement "to invert infinity into an infinitesimal." is gibberish.

[concreteblock]

In an effort to understand what you mean by 'induction' and 'infinity', can you explain where induction comes up in the following standard definition of a limit:

"f has a limit L at x" means exactly that

"forAll epsilon>0 thereExists delta>0 such that if |x-y|<delta then |f(y)-L|<epsilon."

[javajosh]

"forAll"

[concreteblock]

Okay, I see a link to 'infinity' there, because there are infinitely many reals. Is that what you're going for?

If so, the link seems irrelevant and in particular I don't see how this leads to circularity in the definition. Can you explain this further?