Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
fom
Posts:
1,037
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 2:11 AM
|
|
On 3/16/2013 10:55 AM, WM wrote:
> On 16 Mrz., 16:01, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>
>> perhaps you could explain what you mean
>> by "given object" and how an immaterial
>> object can be given.
>
> It cannot be given other than by naming it (except from clumsy
> approaches by means of sign language). How to name some numbers, and
> rules how to invent further names, that can be understood by others,
> who were taught the same rules, is taught in school, university and
> other sources.
What then are some examples
of rules that invent these
further names?
The point of this question is
that you claim such rules but
ignore the work of others who
have steadfastly worked at clarifying
the nature of such rules as a
matter of scientific principle
(in the wider epistemological
sense).
|
|
|
|
