Date: Mar 2, 2013 5:12 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 2 Mrz., 22:55, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1f6ffc0a-1cf2-41cf-9548-73ed71cde...@u2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 1 Mrz., 22:56, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <dcc0a841-b24c-4aba-beac-1358c7692...@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

>
> > >  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > On 28 Feb., 22:14, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > WM confuses those names with the things named.
>
> > > > No.
>
> > > > > One, two three, and so on, are names .
>
> > > > > Ein, Zwei, Drei, und so weiter, are different names but name the same
> > > > > things.

>
> > > > There are rules according to which different names can be put together
> > > > to form sentences. These rules belong to mathematics.

>
> > > For the English language such rules belong to the grammar of the entire
> > > language, not merely to mathematics

>
> > The rule that 2 + 2 can be replaced by 4 belongs to the grammer of
> > English language?

>
> The rule that 2 + 2 can be replaced by 4, at least in many contexts, is
> certainly compatible with the rules of English grammmar.
> Is it not compatible with German grammar?


Don't mistake being compatible with being forced.

Regards, WM