you wrote:
"...I do believe that 5 is equal to 1+1+1+1+1, ..."

Why not 1+1+1+1+1+1+1?  you had a notion somewhere in your mathemaitcally
instructed mind that you have to stop at exactly the 5th addition, because
there is a quantity (???) in the number '5' that made you stop there. Now
"quantity" is also expressed by numbers, lots of them in applying 'rules',
so don't we see here a circularity?
It looks as if the 'numbers' represent quantities?  how about algebra?
What "key" made you stop at the fifth '1'?
(I wrote in a similar sense a post to Colin, an hour ago).

You ended your reply with:
>>"My" Platonism is the explicit or implicit standard platonism of most
working mathematicians.<<
Q: is there a way to reach an agreement between  the "working
mathematicians" and the rest of the world (common sense people)?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical
concept' ;)

Le 09-oct.-06, à 23:56, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :

> ...But it's not. Lets talk about the object with this property of five
> in
> platonia as <5>. Here in reality what we are doing is creating a label
> I
> and interpreting the label as a pointer to storage where the value in
> the
> storage (call it [I])  is not an integer, but a symbolic
> representation of
> property of five_ness as mapped from platonia to reality. What we are
> doing is (very very metaphorically) shining a light (of an infinity of
> possible numbers) on the object <5> in platonia and letting the
> reflected
> light inhabit [I]. We behave as if <5> was in there, but it's not.

I think you are reifying number, or, put in another way, you put much
more in "platonia" than I am using in both the UDA and the AUDA (the
arithmetical UDA alias the interview of the lobian machine). Some
people makes confusion here.

All I say is that a reasoner is platonist if he believes, about
*arithmetical* propositions, in the principle of excluded middle.
Equivalently he believes that if you execute a program P, then either
the program stop or the program does not stop.

I don't believe at all that the number 5 is somewhere "there" in any
sense you would give to "where" or "there".
I do believe that 5 is equal to 1+1+1+1+1, and that for any natural
number N either  N is a multiple of 5 or it is not. So platonism is
just in opposition to ultra-intuitionnism. We know since Godel that
about numbers and arithmetic, intuitionnism is just a terminological
variant of platonism (where a platonist says (A or ~A), an
intuitionnist will say ~~(A or ~A), etc.

"My" Platonism is the explicit or implicit standard platonism of most
working mathematicians.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.1/466 - Release Date: 10/07/06

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to