On 18 Mrz., 22:57, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 3/18/2013 2:05 PM, WM wrote: > > > > > > > On 18 Mrz., 17:36, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > >> Science is based on principles. > > > One may believe in principle that it is possible in principle to find > > in principle a second prime triple. But in mathematics we prove that > > these principles are violated. > > >> One may choose *in principle* > > >> One may name *in principle* > > >> Although related, they are not the > >> same. > > > They are exactly the same for immaterial objects. > > Or what do you understand by "choosing a number" - in principle? >
> One of the problems with descriptions -- and definitions > in general -- is that there can be a multiplicity of them.
That does not make the objects more abundant than the names. So there is no problem. >
It is an impudence to write so much nonsense that has not the least relation to the topic and to expect that I read it. Unfortunately I did it, but it was the last time.
In future, please express yourself concise and to the point in few words, if you would like to be read.