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


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Replies:
77
Last Post:
Mar 19, 2013 11:02 PM



fom
Posts:
1,968
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



