Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
fom
Posts:
1,035
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 19, 2013 11:02 PM
|
|
On 3/19/2013 8:01 PM, fom wrote:
> 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.
>
Forgot one. It is not the name used in my
books. So, I did not look for it first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic
|
|
|
|
