In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 19 Apr., 12:05, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > On 4/19/2013 3:41 AM, WM wrote: > > > > > > >> 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. > > No, I only explained that Virgil's argument was mistaken. There can be > many names for an idea that has no material counterpart. > > > > How do you justify your analysis of the > > statement > > > > "The unicorn does not exist" > > Why should I? The unicorn exists in several forms as ideas of many, > contrary to individuals that cannot even exist as ideas.
There are those to whom the idea that every individual natural must have a successor, and a double, and all sorts of other but larger individual naturals firmly exists, and that the notion of a largest natural is as stupid as WM. > > Regards, WM --