In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8 Dez., 19:16, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > On 12/8/2012 9:08 AM, WM wrote: > > > > There are certain ongoing investigations > > into the structure of mathematical proofs > > that interpret the linguistic usage differently > > from "mathematical logic". You would be > > looking for various discussions of > > context-dependent quantification where it > > is being related to mathematical usage. > > > > You will find that a statment such as > > > > "Fix x" > > > > followed by > > > > "Let y be chosen distinct from x" > > > > is interpreted relative to two > > different domains of discourse. > > > > This is just how one would imagine > > traversing from the bottom of a > > partition lattice. > > A question: Do you believe that there are more than countably many > finite words?
Only if words can be built from infinite alphabets.
> Do you believe that you can use infinite words (not finite > descriptions of infinite sequences).
If an infinite word can be finitely referenced, just as so many infinite decimals are finitely referenced, why not?
> Do you believe that you can put in order what you cannot distinguish?
Given any pair of decimal numerals, they can be correctly ordered in finite time. Which requires, among other things, distinguishing them. --