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
|
|
|
|
