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