2009/6/9 Torgny Tholerus <tor...@dsv.su.se>:
> Jesse Mazer skrev:
>> > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200
>> > From: tor...@dsv.su.se
>> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> > Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
>> >
>> > My philosophical argument is about the mening of the word "all". To be
>> > able to use that word, you must associate it with a value set.
>> What's a "value set"? And why do you say we "must" associate it in
>> this way? Do you have a philosophical argument for this "must", or is
>> it just an edict that reflects your personal aesthetic preferences?
>> > Mostly that set is "all objects in the universe", and if you stay
>> inside the
>> > universe, there is no problems.
>> *I* certainly don't define numbers in terms of any specific mapping
>> between numbers and objects in the universe, it seems like a rather
>> strange notion--shall we have arguments over whether the number 113485
>> should be associated with this specific shoelace or this specific
>> kangaroo?
> When I talk about "universe" here, I do not mean our physical universe.
> What I mean is something that can be called "everything".  It includes
> all objects in our physical universe, as well as all symbols and all
> words and all numbers and all sets and all other universes.  It includes
> everything you can use the word "all" about.

It includes all set, but no all set as it N includes all natural
number but not all natural number... excuse-me but this is non-sense.
Either N exists and has an infinite number of member and is
incompatible with an ultrafinitist view or N does not exists because
obviously N cannot be defined in an ultra-finitist way, any set that
contains a finite number of natural number (and still you haven't
defined what it is in an ultrafinitist way) are not the set N.

Also any operation involving two number (addition/multiplication) can
yield as result a number which has the same property as the departing
number (being a natural number) but is not natural number... Also
induction and inference cannot work in such a context.

> For you to be able to use the word "all", you must define the "domain"
> of that word.  If you do not define the domain, then it will be
> impossible for me and all other humans to understand what you are
> talking about.

Well you are the first and only human I know who don't understand
"all" as everybody else does.

Quentin Anciaux

> --
> Torgny Tholerus
> >

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to