Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 11:28 PM


On Mar 17, 6:45 pm, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: > In <DPWdncbt4PfeGN_MnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@giganews.com>, on 03/14/2013 > at 09:19 PM, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> said: > > >Among all of the possible statement concerning a philosophy of > >mathematics that you could have chosen, the one you did is exactly > >the negation of my philosophy. > > See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair>. > >  > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> > > Unsolicited bulk Email subject to legal action. I reserve the > right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive Email. Reply to > domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not > reply to spamt...@library.lspace.org
Well, poster "fom" might be a robot, or of remarkably high output marked by extensive symbolic manipulation of large finite diagrams and reference, but his output is quite sensical. Personally I think it's remarkable and excellent.
For mechanical semantic interpretation, I wonder: which program, given a sufficiently large corpus of an author's writings, could write in the same style, then as to be indistinguishable to those with varying levels of familiarity with the author, of beyond a Turing test (in as to whether a communicator is a live person, or a construct of artifice), a versimilitude test (or Doppelganger), as to familiarity of the domain and person, and here, coauthors.
Here then back to "Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?", of the names of names and on to Grelling and the autoheterological, and to the limits of constructible difference to the countable, in as to discussions about V visavis L the constructible universe, and as to how the names or for that matter: distinct structure would be exhausted before the uncountable, then it is as to: a set is defined by its elements, that's its name, and there are as many of those as there are of them. The set is its elements is its name.
So, "fom", are you an artifice or naturally born man (in the biological sense as to species)? I guess we're all artifices of a sort.
Heh that levity as it were aside, then it is of further interest, philosophically, in the rejection of extensionality: what is preserved, that extensionality is generally preserved, equality is associative, then to the balance of identity, and variety. Why must it be one or the other and not both? Back to the dialetheic, rejection of LEM for the paraconsistent isn't necessarily total rejection: what symmetry, what force, what quantity: is in as to names, and identity.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson



