
Re: Mathematics as a language
Posted:
Nov 4, 2010 2:09 AM


On Nov 3, 5:05 am, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
> You could say that if you're not sure that <whatever> > unassailable, then it's not unassailable.
Good point!!
> But then there's a kind of sorites paradox about > the unassailable statements.
So it might seem. But sorities paradoxes are not unassailable!
I suspect that most sorities paradoxes are easily assailable. And resolvable.
Consider the classic "heap paradox"  how many stones does it take to make a heap?
If this is interpreted with potentative modaility, i.e. how many stones *could* make a heap, then the answer is sharp!
It is  FOUR! One stone cannot possibly be "heaped", and 2 or 3 cannot if they do not have pits and spikes to help them out, which seem to be agin the definition of a stone.
But 4 stones can trivially make a heap  3 in a close triangle and one on top! Easypeasy baby squeezy!
So that disposes of THAT!
I have on an earlier occasion disposed of the chicken and the egg, though that is not *quite* of sorities type. And the mighty John Baez agreed with me on that occasion! (Let's hear it for "authority"...)
 Beaming Bill

