On 4/19/2013 9:29 AM, WM wrote: > On 19 Apr., 12:34, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> On 4/19/2013 4:23 AM, WM wrote: >> >>> Try to name the greatest number that you can name. Or try to name a >>> greater number than all you have known. >> >> Speaking of what must be tried. >> >> WM has been asked to produce a falsifiably >> scientific largest natural number as >> evidence of his mathematics. > > You have not understood the relativity of mathematics. There is no > fixed largest number in mathematics.
> > "WM believes that > > (|N is a completed infinity and WM does not believe > that |N is a completed infinity)" >
may be found at the end of the post in relation to prior analysis.
The fact that WM manages to turn on a laser or two without hurting himself is not evidence that he understands the meaning of words when he uses them.
For example, "the natural numbers" is a phrase WM seems unable to comprehend.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic#Types_of_reasoners >> >> see "peculiar reasoner" >> -necessarily inaccurate >> >> compare "conceited reasoner" >> -will lapse into inaccuracy >> >> from "peculiar reasoner" >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_paradox >> >> "There is currently no generally accepted explanation >> of Moore's Paradox in the philosophical literature. >> However, while Moore's Paradox remains a philosophical >> curiosity, Moorean-type sentences are used by logicians, >> computer scientists, and those working in the artificial >> intelligence community as examples of cases in which a >> knowledge, belief, or information system is unsuccessful >> in updating its knowledge/belief/information store in >> light of new or novel information" >> >> >> > > from "moore's paradox" > > "Many philosophers -- though by no means all -- also hold > that Moore's Paradox arises not only at the level of > assertion but also at the level of belief. Interestingly, > one who believes an instance of a Moorean sentence is > tantamount to one who is subject to or engaging in > self-deception, at least on one standard way of > describing it. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception > > In other words, does this describe what the readers > of this thread consider to be the state of affairs > for WM? > > "WM believes that > > (|N is a completed infinity and WM does not believe > that |N is a completed infinity)" > >