Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 223: AC and AMS
Replies: 102   Last Post: Apr 18, 2013 12:26 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 223: AC and AMS
Posted: Mar 18, 2013 4:34 PM

On 3/18/2013 2:26 PM, WM wrote:
> On 18 Mrz., 20:00, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>> On 3/18/2013 1:34 PM, WM wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> On 18 Mrz., 18:32, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/18/2013 6:43 AM, WM wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 18 Mrz., 07:26, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> You turn to an outdated strategy directed to
>>>>>> a situation that no longer exists rather
>>>>>> than do the hard work of grounding your
>>>>>> claims. You do this to say that just
>>>>>> because you do not believe a particular
>>>>>> axiom,

>>
>>>>> Wrong. I prove that the axiom is nonsense like the axiom that a
>>>>> triangle with four edges exists.

>>
>>>> That would be more forceful if you used the
>>>> term 'trilateral'.

>>
>>> Then it would be trivial. My example requires a little bit deeper
>>> thought.

>>
>>>> Once again. You have *proven* nothing.
>>
>>> As your foregoing hint shows, you seem to welcome trivialities, but
>>> you seem to be not able to understand more difficult ideas.

>>
>>
>> What I do not understand is how you consider
>> your refusal to provide a similar framework
>> to have merit.-

>
> There is no framework necessary to show in ZFC that every word belongs
> to a countable set.

A set you hold to be interpretable as countable
in relation to a theory of time.

There is a reason Brouwer's ideal mathematician
is pre-linguistic.

And that is a question of mine from another
post for which you have yet to provide an

So, let me explain it to you.

A 'word' constitutes a limitation in the
sense of Kant's 5th remark just as a
geometric point (*represented* arithmetically
in terms of Dedekind cuts) on a line
represents a temporal "now" when the
continuity of a line is used to represent
time in kinematics.

And Kant's 3rd remark explains the error
of "putting the cart before the horse."

> 1)
> Time is not an empirical concept
> that is derived from experience.
> [...]
>
> 2)
> Time is a necessary representation
> that underlies all intuitions
> [...]
>
> 3)
> The possibility of apodeictic principles
> concerning the relations of time, or
> of axioms of time in general is
> grounded upon this a priori necessity.
> [...] We should only be able to
> say that common experience teaches
> that this is so; not that it must be
> so. These principles are valid as
> rules under which alone experiences
> are possible; and they instruct us
> in regard to experiences, not be
> means of them.
>
> 4)
> Time is not a discursive, or what is
> called a general concept, but a form
> of pure sensible intuition.
>
> 5)
> The infinitude of time signifies
> nothing more than that every determinate
> magnitude of time is possible only
> through limitations of one single
> time that underlies it."

One need not base one's understanding of
mathematics on a theory of time. However,
that it is possible is to be found in
Aristotle's discussion of priority:

"One thing is said to be prior to another
in four ways. First and most fully, in
time, when one thing is said to be older
and more ancient than another; for it is
because the time is longer that it is
said to be older or more ancient. Second,
what does not reciprocate in implication
of being. One, for instance, is prior
to two; for if there are two, it follows
immediately that there is one, whereas if
there is one, it is not necessary that there
are two. So that from one, the implication
of the other's being does not hold
reciprocally; and the sort of thing that
seems to be prior is that from which there
is no reciprocal implication of being.
Third, a thing is said to be prior in
some order, as with sciences or speeches.
For in the demonstrative sciences there is
prior and posterior in order, since the
elements are prior in order to the
diagrams; and in grammar the letters are
prior in order to the syllables. And
the same is true for speeches, since
the introduction is prior in order
to the exposition."

Kant's critical philosophy introduces
a notion of time in which Brouwer's
ideal mathematician is necessarily
pre-linguistic. Experience does not
instruct the theory.

So the fact that you can count
nothing because they cannot instruct
with regard to what is presumably
unsayable and unwritable.

Finally, let me remind you of what
has now been identified as the narrowing
requirement one must accept to even
be seen in Weyl where one is asked to
forgo one's logic and one's definition
just long enough to make his reasoning
"true"

In another post I observed the
following:

> Note the explicit rejection of logic
> and definition in his statement,
>
> "Therefore, how two sets (in contrast to
> properties) are defined (on the basis of
> the primitive properties and relations
> and individual objects exhibited by means
> of the principles of section 2) does not
> determine their identity. Rather, an
> objective fact which is not decipherable
> from the definition in a purely logical
> way is decisive; namely, whether each
> element of the one set is an element
> of the other, and conversely. [...]"
>
>
> So, as a reader of this statement, I
> am first expected to reject prior
> definitions and to reject logical
> relations. Then, I am expected to
> understand the discursive assertion
> explaining what it is that cannot
> be explained.

You are more than welcome to begin
again in ways that do not violate
the reasoning of rational human
beings. But failing to identify
principles, failing to identify a
logic, and failing to prove your
statements is not how one goes about
the practice of mathematics.

Date Subject Author
3/14/13 Alan Smaill
3/14/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/14/13 Virgil
3/14/13 fom
3/14/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/14/13 fom
3/14/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/14/13 fom
3/15/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/15/13 fom
3/15/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/15/13 Virgil
3/15/13 fom
3/16/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/16/13 fom
3/16/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/16/13 fom
3/16/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/16/13 Virgil
3/17/13 fom
3/17/13 Virgil
3/16/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/16/13 Virgil
3/17/13 fom
3/17/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/17/13 Virgil
3/17/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/17/13 Virgil
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 Virgil
3/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/18/13 fom
3/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/19/13 fom
3/19/13 fom
3/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/19/13 fom
3/19/13 Virgil
3/19/13 fom
3/19/13 Virgil
3/19/13 Virgil
4/17/13 Virgil
3/18/13 Virgil
3/18/13 Virgil
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 Virgil
3/19/13 fom
3/18/13 Virgil
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/18/13 Virgil
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/18/13 Virgil
3/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/19/13 Virgil
3/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/19/13 Virgil
3/18/13 fom
3/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/19/13 Virgil
3/19/13 fom
4/17/13 Virgil
4/18/13 fom
3/18/13 Virgil
3/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/18/13 Virgil
3/18/13 Virgil
3/18/13 Virgil
3/16/13 Virgil
3/16/13 Virgil
3/17/13 fom
3/15/13 fom
3/16/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/16/13 Virgil
3/15/13 Virgil
3/15/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/15/13 Virgil
3/15/13 fom
3/15/13 fom
3/15/13 Virgil
3/15/13 fom
3/16/13 Virgil
3/14/13 Virgil
3/14/13 Virgil
3/16/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/16/13 Virgil
3/17/13 fom