On 10 Sep, 14:56, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/9 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
What you say above seems pretty much in sympathy with the reductio
arguments based on arbitrariness of implementation.
It is strictly an argument against the claim that
computation
On 10 Sep, 23:09, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/10 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
But isn't that because the computational in CTM is abstracted away
from a context in which there is action and purpose. It's the same
problem that leads to the question, Does a
Brent,
I guess you know my reply to this, but I want to make it clear, for
the benefit of the general discussion. I add a point though.
On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:27, Brent Meeker wrote:
But isn't that because the computational in CTM is abstracted away
from a context in which there is action
On 4 Sep, 22:12, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Sep 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
... Bruno has been arguign that numbers
exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their
existence. The counterargument is that existence in mathematical
statements
On 11 Sep 2009, at 17:45, Flammarion wrote:
On 4 Sep, 22:12, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Sep 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
... Bruno has been arguign that numbers
exist because there are true mathematical statements asserting their
existence. The counterargument is
5 matches
Mail list logo
