[danvet]

This.

Math is a tool (and sometimes abused for pure pleasure, 200 years later applied to make hard crypto work). If your definition doesn't make sense for the application, fix your definition and get over it.

Another example I've recently often bitched about in discussions is modern measure theory and its application to probability calculations. People just don't get the concept of theorytically possible event, but probability 0, i.e. ignore this. But without Lebesgue integration L_p function spaces are not complete and an awful lot of stuff stops to work properly. Among them essentially all of modern physics.

The sane approach is to get over the "this doesn't make intuitive sense" bitchering and just use defintions to derive useful results. And after a few years of playing around with stuff and applying the un-intuitive definition, it's becoming intuitive ;-)

[Dn_Ab]

Interesting that you say that. I've skimmed but have been meaning to properly read Nelson's: Radically Elementary probability theory http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/books/rept.pdf and http://www.stat.umn.edu/geyer/nsa/. They do away with that problem all together as well as infinite constructions (replaced by hyperfinite) by replacing measure theory with non standard analysis. The gain is at least increased intuitiveness.