Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University 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
|
|
|
|
