ogic, but not that one. Why the difference?
You see my point? What you found obvious in my just a question post, presupposes what you don't find obvious in the second RE: Stathis, Lee and the NEAR DEATH LOGIC
So, the obviousness of For all number x, if x is bigger than 2 then x is bigger than
Yes, it's obvious. Bruno, if only everything you said were so obvious!
--Stathis
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything-List List everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Just a question
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:21:04 +0200
Does everyone agree with the following proposition
Does everyone agree with the following proposition:
For all number x, if x is bigger than 2 then x is bigger than
1.
(by bigger I mean strictly bigger: 17 is strictly bigger than 16, but
not strictly bigger than 17).
It would help me to explain some point to non logicians if
I suggest you abandon the notion 'bigger'.
essentially because it is incompatible with
the relation called 'symmetry breaking' - which
is a major qualia in modern physics-math.
James
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Does everyone agree with the following proposition:
For all number x,
, 2005 11:21 AM
Subject: Just a question
Does everyone agree with the following proposition:
For all number x, if x is bigger than 2 then x is bigger than 1.
(by bigger I mean strictly bigger: 17 is strictly bigger than 16, but
not strictly bigger than 17).
It would help me
5 matches
Mail list logo
