On 3/19/2013 12:04 PM, WM wrote: > On 19 Mrz., 17:34, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> On 3/19/2013 11:28 AM, WM wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 18 Mrz., 23:50, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> >>>>> If you are unable to prove by yourself that the set of finite words is >>>>> countable, then further discussion with you is meaningless. >> >>>> What I can or cannot prove to myself is not >>>> an issue. >> >>> Exactly that is the issue - and nothing else! >> >>>> What is needed here is an agreed upon standard >>>> of proof. >> >>> You think if there are enough fools to agree on a foolish standard, >>> that would be enough? You think if there are enough fools to assert >>> that countably many words are sufficient to label uncountably many >>> words, that must be true? >> >>> Deplorable slave! >> >> It seems that I have graduated from >> being a parrot. >> >> I am now acknowledged as a human >> being. > > No, you are in an Asch-experiment:
"As soon as the idea of acquiring symbols and laws of combination, without given meaning, has become familiar, the student has the notion of what I will call a symbolic calculus; which, with certain symbols and certain laws of combination, is symbolic algebra: an art, not a science; and an apparently useless art, except as it may afterwards furnish the grammar of a science. The proficient in a symbolic calculus would naturally demand a supply of meaning. Suppose him left without the power of obtaining it from without: his teacher is dead, and he must invent meanings for himself. His problem is: Given symbols and laws of combination, required meanings for the symbols of which the right to make those combinations shall be a logical consequence. He tries, and succeeds; he invents a set of meanings which satisfy the conditions. Has he then supplied what his teacher would have given, if he had lived? In one particular, certainly: he has turned his symbolic calculus into a significant one. But it does not follow that he has done it in a way which his teacher would have taught if he had lived. It is possible that many different sets of meanings may, when attached to the symbols, make the rules necessary consequences."
Augustus De Morgan
My response to metaphysical claims concerning the bivalence of classical logic: