`At 10:14 01/07/04 -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:`

Re the discussion on mathematical realism etc. I ask for comments on whether or not "definition" that is the division of "ALL" in to two parts is a mathematical process.

To me "definition" seems arbitrary but some definitions result in mathematical concepts such as the one I use which results in the concepts of incompleteness and inconsistency

From this I can infer you are not following classical or more general standard logic where inconsistent theories are trivially complete in the sense that *all* propositions are provable (all the true one + all the false one!).

This explains probably why it is hard to me to follow your post. I suggested to you (some years ago) to follow simpler paths, for pedagogical reasons. I read your posts but I have not yet a clue of what are your more primitive beliefs. You over-use (imo) analogies, which can be inspiring for some constructive path, but you don't seem to be able to realize the lack of clarity of your most interesting posts in that regards. I respect your willingness to try, and I hope my frankness will not discourage you.

From this I can infer you are not following classical or more general standard logic where inconsistent theories are trivially complete in the sense that *all* propositions are provable (all the true one + all the false one!).

This explains probably why it is hard to me to follow your post. I suggested to you (some years ago) to follow simpler paths, for pedagogical reasons. I read your posts but I have not yet a clue of what are your more primitive beliefs. You over-use (imo) analogies, which can be inspiring for some constructive path, but you don't seem to be able to realize the lack of clarity of your most interesting posts in that regards. I respect your willingness to try, and I hope my frankness will not discourage you.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/