<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Synechism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://synechism.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://synechism.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>A mixture of philosophy and mathematics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:49:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Zeno and additivity by cssp</title>
		<link>http://synechism.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/zeno-and-additivity/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>cssp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:49:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://synechism.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/zeno-and-additivity/#comment-3</guid>
		<description>All the results of standard analysis may be derived in nonstandard analysis as well. In fact, there are a number of nice nonstandard analysis texts, Robert Goldblatt&#039;s &lt;em&gt;Lectures on the Hyperreals&lt;/em&gt; being one of my favorites.

Your question is a good one, and one I have been giving some thought to recently. Namely, how much should one&#039;s philosophy of mathematics influence one&#039;s teaching of mathematics? In writing my analysis book, I was writing a book for use in the undergraduate beginning analysis course I taught last fall. Given that this was the first (and, for many, the last) course that these students would see in analysis, I felt it should be a standard epsilon-delta treatment of the subject. If nonstandard methods make more inroads into the mainstream curriculum, I could see myself changing my thoughts on this sometime in the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All the results of standard analysis may be derived in nonstandard analysis as well. In fact, there are a number of nice nonstandard analysis texts, Robert Goldblatt&#8217;s <em>Lectures on the Hyperreals</em> being one of my favorites.</p>
<p>Your question is a good one, and one I have been giving some thought to recently. Namely, how much should one&#8217;s philosophy of mathematics influence one&#8217;s teaching of mathematics? In writing my analysis book, I was writing a book for use in the undergraduate beginning analysis course I taught last fall. Given that this was the first (and, for many, the last) course that these students would see in analysis, I felt it should be a standard epsilon-delta treatment of the subject. If nonstandard methods make more inroads into the mainstream curriculum, I could see myself changing my thoughts on this sometime in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Zeno and additivity by Arthur Nardiello</title>
		<link>http://synechism.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/zeno-and-additivity/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Arthur Nardiello</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:15:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://synechism.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/zeno-and-additivity/#comment-2</guid>
		<description>Professor Sloughter,
Can you shed some light on why you have such a wonderful nonstandard calculus text but an analysis text that uses epsilon delta proofs, open and closed sets, etc.?  Is there no way to extend nonstandard notions beyond basic calculus?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Professor Sloughter,<br />
Can you shed some light on why you have such a wonderful nonstandard calculus text but an analysis text that uses epsilon delta proofs, open and closed sets, etc.?  Is there no way to extend nonstandard notions beyond basic calculus?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
