Philosophy Explorer wrote:
I will explain it so that even the chicken man can understand.
I'm sure even he can recall that math websites I've posted to had told me the purpose of their websites was for helping out members (i.e. homework problems), not for recreational math. ...
I'll give you that there aren't many but that appears to be an opportunity for you to start something useful. Still here you go for starters,
http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumID=435
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/main.a ... 2038343937
http://gauravtiwari.org/2014/07/26/8-bi ... ould-join/
To reinforce what I'm explaining for the benefit of the chicken man, look at the title of this section. It doesn't say philosophy of mathematics, does it? It says LOGIC AND philosophy of mathematics so it just doesn't have to be about philosophy of mathematics which is what I've been doing (the logic part). ...
Since we're now talking Logic the conjunction means both Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics, where's the latter?
Now I think even the chicken man realizes that I've been using logic in my math postings and it would be useless for him to persist any further, otherwise I'll just have to pluck out some more of his feathers.
In your dreams as firstly you've been using the logic associated with Mathematics which is not the Logic of Philosophy and secondly you've been, by your own admission, doing recreational Mathematics and hence by logic not doing Logic nor Philosophy of Mathematics.
I'm still working on extending the proof to at least where all the powers of anagram numbers, are natural numbers.
OMG! The numbnuts proves my point for me. Cluck! Cluck!