Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


fom
Posts:
1,968
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.



