On 9/23/2012 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The continued confusion of the symbols and what they represent makes
this entire conversation an exercise in futility.
On 22 Sep 2012, at 22:10, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/22/2012 7:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
How could we have a world we many minds can, on rare occasions, come
to complete agreement if that where the case? Perhaps it is true that
2+2=4 because we all agree, at some level, that it is true. (I am not
just considering humans here with the word "we"!)
How could mathematics be fiction ?
If so, then we could simply say that 2+2=5 because it's saturday.
How will you define "we" without accepting "2+2=4", given that IF we
assume comp, "we" are defined by (Löbian) universal number and their
relations with other universal numbers?
Why do you keep an idealist conception of numbers, which contradicts
your references to papers which use, as most texts in science, the
independence and primitivity of elementary arithmetic?
Or you remark was ironic?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at