Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 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

Date Subject Author
3/14/13 David Petry
3/14/13 fom
3/14/13 David Petry
3/14/13 fom
3/14/13 David Petry
3/14/13 fom
3/17/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
3/17/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
3/18/13 fom
3/18/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
3/19/13 fom
3/14/13 Virgil
3/14/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/14/13 Virgil
3/14/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/14/13 fom
3/14/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/14/13 fom
3/14/13 Virgil
3/14/13 Virgil
3/14/13 Virgil
3/14/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/14/13 harold james
3/14/13 Virgil
3/14/13 fom
3/14/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/14/13 Virgil
3/14/13 fom
3/14/13 Jesse F. Hughes
3/14/13 fom
3/14/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/14/13 fom
3/14/13 David Petry
3/15/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/15/13 Virgil
3/15/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/15/13 Virgil
3/15/13 fom
3/16/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/16/13 FredJeffries@gmail.com
3/16/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/16/13 Virgil
3/16/13 fom
3/16/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/16/13 Virgil
3/16/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/16/13 Virgil
3/17/13 fom
3/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/19/13 fom
3/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/19/13 Virgil
3/19/13 fom
3/19/13 fom
3/19/13 fom
3/19/13 fom
3/19/13 fom
3/19/13 fom
3/19/13 Virgil
3/16/13 Virgil
3/17/13 fom
3/14/13 Virgil
3/14/13 Jesse F. Hughes
3/15/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/15/13 Virgil
3/14/13 David Petry
3/14/13 Jesse F. Hughes
3/14/13 David Petry
3/14/13 Jesse F. Hughes
3/15/13 David Petry
3/15/13 Jesse F. Hughes
3/15/13 David Petry
3/15/13 Virgil
3/15/13 fom
3/15/13 fom
3/15/13 fom
3/15/13 Jesse F. Hughes
3/14/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com