Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
fom
Posts:
1,037
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 19, 2013 10:48 AM
|
|
On 3/19/2013 7:28 AM, WM wrote:
> 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.
Who gave you 5 and 6?
You have rejected classical mathematics.
Markov is the example of how to develop "the given"
for a constructible mathematics based on marks.
What you expect from your statement is an agreement
concerning illocutionary acts between language users.
You have stated that repeatedly with regard to the
nature of how a name comes to have meaning.
But you deny any responsibility for participating
in an interplay of implicature by which to establish
such meaning.
What, then, did you come here to teach?
I demand to know the meaning of your terms from
first principles.
Or, answer the question:
Why is Brouwer's "ideal mathematician" pre-linguistic?
|
|
|
|
