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 4:50 PM


On 19 Mrz., 15:48, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > 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?
My father or mother, I think. But why is that important? > > You have rejected classical mathematics.
No.
> > Markov is the example of how to develop "the given" > for a constructible mathematics based on marks.
I do not need Markov for that sake. > > 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.
Try to forget what you have learned about mathematics and philosophy. Start with the four species +,,*,: and the tables. That is the foundation from which all sensical mathematics follows. And that is given. There is no need to try to find principles.
Regards, WM



