Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
fom
Posts:
1,093
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 19, 2013 9:01 PM
|
|
On 3/19/2013 3:50 PM, WM wrote:
> 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.
No, you have your beliefs.
Here is some help with those:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_modal_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
When you formulate a deductive system, the logicians
here will certainly consider it for admissibility
to these discussions.
You will need a model theory too.
|
|
|
|
