On 12 Jun., 04:15, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote: > In article <102f1c16-0ef5-4189-aea6-bcccf7729...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: > > On 11 Jun., 15:07, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote: > ... > > > > > Yes, obtained from. But that does not mean they are identical. > > > > > Moreover, does what Weyl wrote a long time ago still have validity > > > > > now? > > > > > > > > It is 50 years younger than Canto's writings. > > > > > > What is the relevance? > > > > > Your question: Does what Weyl wrote a long time ago still have > > validity now? > > My question still stands and I see no answer.
Then take my answer: Yes. > > > > > > > But it does rule out theories which are contradicted by the > > > > > > fundamental logical rules. And one of these rules is that a > > > > > > complete linear set has a last element. > > > > > > > > > > What fundamental rules of logic are you using? I have never seen > > > > > such a > logical rule, because logic does not talk about sets. > > > > > > > > Logic states that the union of a *complete* set of finite linear > > > > sets is a finite linear set > > > > > > As I said, logic is not talking about sets. So where in logic is such > > > stated? > > > > Logic is obtained from the behaviour of things. Things can be > > considered as sets, at least if two things are taken together. Bolzano > > excused himself for including 2. Later they included 1 and even 0, > > That is not an answer to my question.
That answer is: Logic is obtained from the behaviour of things. > > > > > > > No. I use the fact that for complete linear sets always both > > > > > > implications are true : > > > > > > [**] & [***]. This means that [*] is true. > > > > > > > > > > You just state so without proof. > > > > > > > > A proof is a derivation of theorems from axioms or basic truths by > > > > means of rules of logical inference. These rules themselves cannot > > > > be proven but can only be obtained from the behaviour of existing > > > > (i.e., finite) sets. > > > > > > So you are not using mathematical logic? > > > > Nobody should do so. Many "logicians" are below any level. > > Yes, I know you do not like logic.
I like logic, but not nonsense. > > > There is > > one Fool Of Matheology, for instance, who thinks that the cartesian > > product of the set of finite alphabets is uncountable. > > What is "the cartesion product of the set of finite alphabets"? The only > definition I know is that "the cartesion product of a set" is "the > cartesian square of a set", i.e. the set of pairs (x, y) where both x and > y come from the set. Apparently you mean something else.
No. I mean exactly that: The set of finite words over a finite alphabet is countable. The set of meanings of these words, i.e., the set of languages, is countable. The set of finite alphabets is countable. The cartesian product of these, and possibly some further features, is countable.
> > > I still do not see the logic through which you obtain it. > > > > It is obtained from the action and reaction of physical subjects. > > What has *that* to do with logical reasoning? Logical reasoning is able to > come up with algorithms like APR-CL that decide whether a number is prime > or not. What is the relation with "action and reaction of physical subjects"? > How does "action and reaction of physical subjects" relate to the logic that > constructed algorithms (like NSF) to factorise numbers? What are the > "actions and reactions of physival subjects" involved in taking the union of > FISONs?
The logic is obtained from physical objects. How else should it have come into being? Remember, even brains are physical objects.
