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 19, 2013 8:28 AM


On 17 Mrz., 07:11, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > 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?
If 5 and 6 are given, mathematics defines how to produce 11. > > 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).
I do not ignore these rules, but in some instances I can show that they are contradictory.
Regards, WM



