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: Matheology § 253
Replies: 30   Last Post: Apr 22, 2013 2:44 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 253
Posted: Apr 19, 2013 12:10 PM

On 4/19/2013 11:03 AM, AMiews wrote:
> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message
> news:h_KdnYlSDd9-i-zMnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@giganews.com...

>> On 4/19/2013 3:41 AM, WM wrote:
>>> On 19 Apr., 09:34, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>>
>>>> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>>>>>> So, mathematics has become theological because
>>>>>> it treats real numbers as individuals although
>>>>>> they cannot be named

>>>>
>>>>> Since numbers do not exists, in mathematics, i.e., in discourse, other
>>>>> than as names

>>>>
>>>> Nonsense!
>>>> If numbers existed only as names then different names would necessarily
>>>> represent different numbers,

>>>
>>> No. Look, the unicorn does not exist other than as its name. But there
>>> are different written names and many different pictures describing it.
>>>

>>
>> So, you now turn to an argument about negative existential
>> statements.
>>
>> Why do you not bother to learn about them so that you
>> can speak intelligently on these matters?
>>
>> How do you justify your analysis of the
>> statement
>>
>> "The unicorn does not exist"
>>
>> in terms of how it comes to be either
>> true or false?

>
> are these true or false ?
>
> the non unicorn does non-exist.
>
> the un-unicorn does un-exist
>
> the not unicorn does exist.
>
> the unicorn (meaning only one) does not exist.
>
> the unicorns do not exist (all of them)
>
> non physical concepts do not exist
>
> physical concepts do exist
>
> all concepts are divided into physical and non physical
>
> the concept of unicorn(s) is divided into physical and non physical
>
> a drawing of a unicorn is physical
>
>
>
>

(-:

There seems no need for you to rethink
the foundations of model theory. Of
course, you are not going around saying
what does and what does not exist when
it suits the need.

Date Subject Author
4/18/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/18/13 fom
4/18/13 Virgil
4/18/13 fom
4/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/19/13 Virgil
4/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/19/13 fom
4/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/19/13 fom
4/19/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/19/13 fom
4/19/13 Virgil
4/19/13 fom
4/19/13 Bergholt Stuttley Johnson
4/20/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/20/13 fom
4/20/13 Virgil
4/21/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/21/13 Virgil
4/21/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/21/13 Virgil
4/22/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/22/13 Virgil
4/19/13 Virgil
4/19/13 Virgil
4/19/13 Scott Berg
4/19/13 fom
4/19/13 Michael Klemm
4/19/13 Virgil
4/19/13 fom