Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 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, 

That's not obvious to me.  You're assuming that N exists apart from 
whatever definition of it is given and that it is the infinite set 
described by the Peano axioms or equivalent.  But that's begging the 
question of whether a finite set of numbers that we would call "natural 
numbers" can be defined.  To avoid begging the question we need some 
definition of "natural" that doesn't a priori assume the set is finite 
or infinite; something like, "A set of numbers adequate to do all 
arithmetic we'll ever need" (unfortunately not very definite).  The 
problem is the successor axiom, if we modify it to S{n}=n+1 for n e N 
except for the case n=N where S{N}=0 and choose sufficiently large N it 
might satisfy the "natural" criteria.


> 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

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