Date: Mar 21, 2013 2:04 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/21/2013 5:21 AM, WM wrote:
> On 21 Mrz., 08:57, William Hughes <> wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 8:46 am, WM <> wrote:

>>> My question remains: What is the subset of necessary lines?
>> There is no such thing as a necessary line.

> Correct. That is because the asserted aim cannot be established. In
> order to reach a goal that is impossible to reach, no attempt is
> necessary.


Notice the invocation of "will" -- that is, the
mention of 'aims' and 'goals'. This is suggestive
of the Brouwerian notion of time and causality in
WM's belief system concerning mathematics.

Yet, he will neither commit to Brouwer's ideas nor
present his own.

How shall his readers judge the felicity of his
remarks for themselves if he will not explain himself?

The rhetoric of politicians is based upon the discovery
of grammatical forms that others do not question too
closely because of their own beliefs. But, mathematics
is not politics. One hopes that WM's readers think about
that in relation to his refusals to explain himself.