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
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
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
You have to explain why the exception is needed in the first place...
The rule is true until the rule is not true anymore, ok but you have
to explain for what sufficiently large N the successor function would
yield next 0 and why or to add that N and that exception to the
successor function as
I think that resorting to calling the biggest natural number BIGGEST,
rather than specifying exactly what that number is, is a tell-tale sign
that the ultrafinitist knows that any specification for BIGGEST will
immediately reveal that it is not the biggest because one could always
add one
Let me correct...
Assuming your special successor rule BIGGEST+1 simply is 0 and is well
defined and *is part* of the previously defined set of natural number
(defined as 0,...,BIGGEST) unlike what Torgny argues.
Regards,
Quentin
2009/6/9 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
You have to
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
You have to explain why the exception is needed in the first place...
The rule is true until the rule is not true anymore, ok but you have
to explain for what sufficiently large N the successor function would
yield next 0 and why or to add that N and that exception to
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:38:23 +0200
From: tor...@dsv.su.se
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
Jesse Mazer skrev:
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200
From: tor...@dsv.su.se
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re:
2009/6/9 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
You have to explain why the exception is needed in the first place...
The rule is true until the rule is not true anymore, ok but you have
to explain for what sufficiently large N the successor function would
yield next
2009/6/9 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2009/6/9 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
You have to explain why the exception is needed in the first place...
The rule is true until the rule is not true anymore, ok but you have
to explain for what sufficiently
A good model of the naturalist math that Torgny is talking about is the
overflow mechanism in computers.
For example in a 64 bit machine you may define overflow for positive
integers as 2^^64 -1. If negative integers are included then the
biggest positive could be 2^^32-1.
Torgny would also
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:54:16 -0700
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
You don't justify definitions. How would you justify Peano's axioms as being
the right ones? You are just confirming my
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:54:16 -0700
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
You don't justify definitions. How would you justify Peano's axioms
as being
the right ones? You are
2009/6/10 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:54:16 -0700
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
You don't justify definitions. How would you justify
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:22:10 -0700
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:54:16 -0700
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:22:10 -0700
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:54:16 -0700
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To:
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:20:39 -0700
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:22:10 -0700
From: meeke...@dslextreme.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
17 matches
Mail list logo
