On 10/19/2013 8:40 AM, Peter Percival wrote: > fom wrote: >> On 10/19/2013 6:23 AM, Peter Percival wrote: >>> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>> >>>> What definition of "invalidity" were you referring to _here_ ? Mine? >>> >>> If you use the word "invalidity" is newsgroups called sci.logic and >>> sci.math then it should probably be with its usual technical meaning. If >>> you use it in another sense you should probably say what sense that is >>> right from the start. >>> >> >> It does get confusing, doesn't it? Given that Nam's apparent >> views are epistemic and modal, > > And yet he refuses to say what is epistemic and modal assumptions are, > though he is fond of the phrase "impossible to know". >
I do not think he understand the question or how it matters.
The same seems true of Dan. I am more than willing to grant that 0^0 does not have a unique value. Then, even the second-order Peano theory cannot be categorical because of the modal alternatives.
It is as if he "knows"
~( 0 = 1 )
but cannot grasp
~( 1 = 2 )
or whatever "many" is not contradictory.
I think the same is true with Nam. I try not to be overly critical. But, what is one to conclude when someone does not, at least, glance at materials recommended by others to see if it is relevant in the way that the others suggest?