On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:30:43 -0700 (PDT), Arturo Magidin <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Doesn't this sound rather like what some of the "cranks" hereabouts >> are trying to say? > >Which "cranks", and what specifically do they say that you find >"rather like" exactly which part of the above? > >Yet again: one cannot give you an exact answer if you >insist on presenting nothing but vague statements that have >little or no actual content. I certainly have no desire >to waste my time discussing phantoms and ephemerals, >so perhaps you can stop being vague and wishy-washy, >and give some specifics? If you can't, then stop trying >to think about math. Now. Stop. Yes. You. Stop it. >There is absolutely no point in discussing mathematics >on the basis of vague pronouncements, vague statements, >vague "feelings", and vague impressions; because, whatever >it is you end up doing, it's not mathematics.
Thank you for trying, although I have clearly not been able to phrase a question that you feel has a useful answer.
Even this is at least somewhat informative.
Your ability to translate it into some discussion of the constructivist limitations was useful, as it is. I did not think that was the domain I was asking about, but - it might be anyway.