Dear LizR,

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:44 PM, LizR <> wrote:

> On 19 January 2014 16:28, Stephen Paul King <>wrote:
>> Dear Brent,
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb <> 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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to