Dear LizR,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:44 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19 January 2014 16:28, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Dear Brent, >> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Not so cotton-picking fast! Where is discussion of the proofs of said >>> "necessarily true" maths? I could be handed a papyrus scroll covered with >>> indecipherable chicken scratch and need to find a way to "prove" that it is >>> a theory of Green Eggs and Ham. How do I get that proof? >>> >> >> What about math theories whose equations are relations between >> ginormous prime numbers and I have to factor them to extract a proof of >> this or that statement in the theory? Are they necessarily true? Truth does >> not come from a fancy looking stamp marked QED by Professor Ultimum >> Mentalium. No. >> >> > Well, AR *postulates* that there is something out there, and that human > mathematicians are discovering it. (And that whether we can do it or not is > irrelevant to the fact of its existence.) > > Similarly, physics postulates that there is something out there, which we > are discovering. The evidence in both cases involves whether the > "something" can surprise us, or produce unexpected results. But it's all > hypothetical, of course. > > > I am OK with postulating, but it is something like an observer that is performing the postulating. Similarly, it is assumed that a person that can understand the Doctor's hypothesis that can bet that the Doc is correct and say, "Yes!" Can a theorem speculate on its own substitution level? If so, How? Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
