
Re: § 432 The complete list is not a square
Posted:
Feb 21, 2014 6:14 AM


On Thursday, 20 February 2014 23:01:01 UTC+1, fom wrote: > On 2/20/2014 3:51 PM, Virgil wrote: > > > In article <ed9f520eb67a44a2a14e751dd49bd8e5@googlegroups.com>, > > > mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote: > > > > > >>> They are Not Countable within the Theory, and that's what matters! > > >> > > >> They are countable in mathematics based upon English. And that's what matters > > >> for sober minds. > > > > > > WM may be able to speak authoritatively re what can be said in German, > > > but is clearly no authority on either English or mathematics. > > > > > > > He does good enough. > > > > But, he fails to understand that natural languages > > do not allow one to clearly distinguish between > > paradoxical selfreference and nonparadoxical > > selfreference.
They can distinguish better than formal languages. Remember, all that is said in sci.math is contained in one finite word of the list of all finite words. And all that ever has been said in formal language is also contained in one finite word. Formal language can not even define definition, but it needs definitions. Therefore formalism is a big fraund.
But there is one advantage: it helps its disciples to feel superior and in possesion of absolute truth (also truth cannot be defined).
Regards, WM

