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: Ordinals describable by a finite string of symbols
Replies: 27   Last Post: Jul 8, 2013 9:56 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Ordinals describable by a finite string of symbols
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 7:51 PM

On 7/7/2013 5:02 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message
> news:_9idnQkXucdXIETMnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...

>> On 7/7/2013 1:10 PM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>> "fom" <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote in message

>>>> On 7/7/2013 8:06 AM, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>>>>> "Julio Di Egidio" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote in message
>>>>> news:krbohl\$av6\$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>

>>>>>> We know it when you know it, it self-represents
>>>>>
>>>>> Oops, I just meant: We know it when we know it...

>>>>
>>>> It is common among the men with whom I
>>>> work to hear, "It is what it is".
>>>>
>>>> I take it to be an article of faith

>>>
>>> Is that all you could gather? Then I'll give you another pearl to think
>>> about: dogmatism and scepticism are the two sides of the same coin. But

>>
>> Well, I had been thinking in terms of the
>> fact that experience has an unavoidable
>> subjective sense. It invariably admits the
>> reduction of linguistic expressions to mere
>> syntax. But, it is also the subjective
>> experience that affords meaningful interpretation.

>
> I do not see how linguistic expression (language) can be reduced to
> syntax: a sign is not a symbol, the magic is all in the interpreter.
>

Two different individuals with two different
subjective experiences may interpret linguistic
expressions differently.

In like fashion, there is the Fregean argument
that any mark can signify.

There are a great many aspects to pragmatics
involved with meaning. Carnap is attributed
with delineating syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.

Agreements as to the fact that an expression is
well-formed and that particular well-formed
expressions have particular meanings are matters
which fall into the domain of pragmatics.

I have traced the unmentioned role of pragmatics
with respect to the notion of "undefined language
primitives". Bolzano and Frege both speak of conveying
meaning through explanation and example. This is
pragmatics. The argument actually defeats the idea
that meaning is given through truth valuation.

Both, however, had been seeking the notion of
substantive reference as the arbiter of meaning
in the sense of metaphysical truth. So, this
is different from mere truth valuation.

Only the quote I provided from De Morgan suggests
a mechanism where an individual's subjective
experience is the sole determiner of meaning.

>> It is in the transition from subjective to
>> objective where all of the difficulties seem to
>> arise.

>
> "objectivity" I would ask? I.e. same cart before the horses.

Then I must assume you choose to be a
Humean skeptic.

You wish to deny skepticism. Now I am not
convinced. Kant made a heroic attempt at
rejecting Hume while reconciling Newtonian
empiricism with Leibnizian idealism. These
are his stated objectives in his writings.
If you wish me to argue these points, direct
me to the philosopher (relevant to the foundations

This will provide me with a common background
to discuss this matter. I believe, however,
you will find none.

If you really wish me to discuss the question
"what objectivity?" on my terms, then let us
discuss "Critique of Pure Reason" and "Prolegomena
to any Future Metaphysics". Kant specifically
introduces the distinction between intuition and
understanding to provide a context for delineating
the subjective from the objective.

> There
> just is no such thing as a purely syntactical proof.
>

Perhaps. But logic concerns itself with the
linguistic forms used in argumentation. Part
of its science is to classify and categorize
the schema which it discerns from its
analyses.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-form/

Obviously, "proof" is intimately involved with
the beliefs of the participants since any non-trivial
assertion has non-tautological assumptions as premises
of its deduction.

Date Subject Author
7/5/13 fom
7/5/13 fom
7/6/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
7/7/13 Peter Percival
7/7/13 fom
7/8/13 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
7/8/13 fom
7/5/13 fom
7/5/13 fom
7/6/13 LudovicoVan
7/6/13 fom
7/6/13 LudovicoVan
7/6/13 fom
7/6/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 fom
7/7/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 fom
7/7/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 fom
7/7/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 fom
7/8/13 apoorv
7/7/13 fom
7/7/13 LudovicoVan
7/7/13 fom