On 02 Dec 2012, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/2/2012 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Nov 2012, at 21:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/30/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
And a transcendent truth could be arithmetic truth or
the truth of necessary logic.
True in logic and formal
On 30 Nov 2012, at 21:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/30/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
And a transcendent truth could be arithmetic truth or
the truth of necessary logic.
True in logic and formal mathematics is just marker T that is
preserved by the rules of inference.
This makes no
On 12/2/2012 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Nov 2012, at 21:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/30/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
And a transcendent truth could be arithmetic truth or
the truth of necessary logic.
True in logic and formal mathematics is just marker T that is preserved by
:28:31
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 11/30/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
And a transcendent truth could be arithmetic truth or
the truth of necessary logic.
True in logic and formal mathematics is just marker T that is preserved by
the rules of inference. In applications
. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-02, 18:20:11
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Are you familiar with Jaakko Hintikka's ideas? I am using his concept
. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-11-02, 18:20:11
*Subject:* Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM
content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-30, 11:17:12
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 11/30/2012 9:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Hintakka's concept of truth is what is called pragmatic truth,
or scientific truth. It's the same
On 11/30/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
And a transcendent truth could be arithmetic truth or
the truth of necessary logic.
True in logic and formal mathematics is just marker T that is preserved by the rules of
inference. In applications it is interpreted as if it were the
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 10:18:16
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 11/3/2012 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 11:46, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal
On 11/5/2012 1:14 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Plato in the end confessed that the best he
could offer was a likely story. I see no reason
to doubt his authority. Nor of the Bible,
for that matter.
Dear Roger,
This tells me that you are OK with arguments from authority. This
-05, 13:39:57
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 11/5/2012 1:14 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Plato in the end confessed that the best he
could offer was a likely story. I see no reason
to doubt his authority. Nor of the Bible,
for that matter.
Dear Roger
On 03 Nov 2012, at 16:18, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 11:46, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How can anything emerge from something having non properties?
Magic?
Dear Bruno,
No, necessity. The
On 11/4/2012 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Does the One have a Concept of The One as its unique 1p?
I think the inner God, alias the arithmetical 1p (not arithmetical
in the logician sense, but still applying to the machine) , alias Bp
p (Theaetetus on Bp) can be said to be a unique
On 02 Nov 2012, at 19:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/2/2012 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a
concrete robust physical universe.
?
On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How can anything emerge from something having non properties? Magic?
Dear Bruno,
No, necessity. The totality of existence, the One, cannot be
complete and consistent simultaneously,
Why not? The One is not a theory.
Why does it have to
On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I read Russell. Never found something that non sensical. If the basic
object have no properties, I don't see how anything can emerge from
it. You have to explain your point, not to refer to the literature.
Dear Bruno,
Did you notice that I
On 02 Nov 2012, at 23:12, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I can understand these symbols because there is at least a way
to physically implement them.
Those notion have nothing to do with physical implementation.
So your thinking about them is not a
On 02 Nov 2012, at 23:16, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You are the one saying that truth is limited to the means of
knowing!!!
Yes and no, Truth is limited to the *possibility* of knowledge of
it. In the absence of the possibility of a statement
On 02 Nov 2012, at 23:20, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Are you familiar with Jaakko Hintikka's ideas? I am using his
concept of game theoretic semantics to derive truth valuations.
I read this. yes. I don't see relevant at all.
I do appreciate his
On 03 Nov 2012, at 11:46, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How can anything emerge from something having non properties?
Magic?
Dear Bruno,
No, necessity. The totality of existence, the One, cannot be
complete and consistent simultaneously,
Why not?
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
2012/11/2 Stephen P. King
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I can understand these symbols because there is at least a way to physically
implement them.
Those notion have nothing to do with physical implementation.
? ? So your
...@verizon.net
11/3/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-02, 18:12:19
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal
is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-02, 18:16:09
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You are the one saying
: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-02, 23:17:40
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 11/2/2012 8:25 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Either you can have emerging properties of nothing or you can't.
Either there is infinite regress or not, whatever is true (and one or
the other is), it's
On 11/3/2012 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 11:46, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How can anything emerge from something having non properties? Magic?
Dear Bruno,
No, necessity. The totality of existence, the One, cannot be
complete
On 11/3/2012 8:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
1 + 1 =2 is a necessary truth, not a fact. It is always true.
A priori. So there are necessary truths such as arithmetical truths
which were here before the contingent world of facts was created.
And will always be.
Hi Roger,
On 11/3/2012 8:51 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
The platonic realm is nothing.
Intelligence is nothing.
Life itself is nothing.
1-1 = 0
2-2 = 0
3-3 = 0
...
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this
On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a
concrete robust physical universe.
?
Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I
explicitly do assume a primitive
On 01 Nov 2012, at 22:50, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:18, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
can stop reading as you need to assume the numbers (or anything
Turing equivalent) to get them.
On 11/2/2012 5:29 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 11/1/2012 12:23 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Don't get me started on reductionism! I don't believe in it
On 11/2/2012 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a
concrete robust physical universe.
?
Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I can understand these symbols because there is at least a way to
physically implement them.
Those notion have nothing to do with physical implementation.
So your thinking about them is not a physical act?
Too much ambiguous. Even staying in
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
bundles of arithmetic statements generate many individual observers
that in turn interact (which I model via a combination of cyclic
gossiping on graphs and bisimulations) with each other to define a
common physical world which in turn acts to
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You are the one saying that truth is limited to the means of knowing!!!
Yes and no, Truth is limited to the *possibility* of knowledge of
it. In the absence of the possibility of a statement being true (or
false), there is not such thing as true
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Are you familiar with Jaakko Hintikka's ideas? I am using his concept
of game theoretic semantics to derive truth valuations.
I read this. yes. I don't see relevant at all.
I do appreciate his linking of intention and intension, but it is a
bit
2012/11/2 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 11/2/2012 1:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I can understand these symbols because there is at least a way to
physically implement them.
Those notion have nothing to do with physical implementation.
So your thinking about them is not a
On 11/2/2012 8:25 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Either you can have emerging properties of nothing or you can't.
Either there is infinite regress or not, whatever is true (and one or
the other is), it's not an obstacle.
Hi Questin,
It depends on whether you think of Nothing as merely an
On 11/1/2012 1:19 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/31/2012 6:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the
equivalent notion according to your chosen system). let us call those
functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2, ... (the phi_i)
Let B be a fixed
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 10/31/2012 6:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Dear Cowboy,
One question. Was the general outline that I was trying to
On 11/1/2012 6:54 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 10/31/2012 6:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King
On 31 Oct 2012, at 19:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 7:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:15
On 01 Nov 2012, at 00:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No? If they do not have something equivalent to concepts, how
can they dream?
Yes, the universal
On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:18, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/31/2012 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My
On 01 Nov 2012, at 05:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/31/2012 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't see why denying mathematical realism would entail saying
no to the doctor.
It implies not saying yes qua computatio. It implies NOT
understanding what Church thesis is about, as to show it
On 01 Nov 2012, at 06:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/31/2012 6:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: (actually it was Bruno)
Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the
equivalent notion according to your chosen system). let us call
those functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2, ...
On 01 Nov 2012, at 14:25, Stephen P. King wrote:
But I agree with comp up to the strong version of step 8!
But then you have to find the flaw in step 8. as step 8 is done in
comp, without adding any assumptions, of course.
I accept comp with a weak version of step 8 or, I think
On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a
concrete robust physical universe.
?
Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I explicitly
do assume a primitive physical reality.
In step 8, it is done for the reductio
On 11/1/2012 12:23 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Don't get me started on reductionism! I don't believe in it as I
don't believe in ontologically primitive objects that have
particular properties.
Then I don't see how you can make an ontological bet. You're at the
table,
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No? If they do not have something equivalent to concepts, how can
they dream?
Yes, the universal numbers can have concept.
Dear Bruno,
Let's start over. Please plain in detail what is a
is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-30, 14:50:24
Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm
On 10/30/2012 10:39 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno
On 30 Oct 2012, at 18:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of
theorems apply only to the concepts of numbers
On 30 Oct 2012, at 19:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 10:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is
On 30 Oct 2012, at 19:58, meekerdb wrote:
If there were no humans, no human level consciousness, would it
still be true that Holmes assistant is Watson?
If there are no humans, Conan Doyle would not have created the Holmes
and Watson characters, to which the use of the names refer, and the
On 10/30/2012 7:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:15 PM,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Dear Cowboy,
One question. Was the general outline that I was trying to explain
make any sense to you? Without being obvious about it, I am trying to
finely parse the difference between the logic of temporal
On 10/31/2012 6:14 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Cowboy,
One question. Was the general outline that I was trying to
explain make any sense to you? Without
On 10/31/2012 11:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't see why denying mathematical realism would entail saying no to the
doctor.
It implies not saying yes qua computatio. It implies NOT understanding what Church
thesis is about, as to show it consistent you need the diagonalization, which use
On 10/31/2012 6:58 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Enumerate the programs computing functions fro N to N, (or the equivalent notion
according to your chosen system). let us call those functions: phi_0, phi_1, phi_2,
... (the phi_i)
Let B be a fixed bijection from N x N to N. So B(x,y) is a
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply only to the
concepts of numbers and their constructions, not to numbers themselves.
Truth applies to proposition, or sentences representing them for some machine/numbers.
If
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems
apply only to the concepts of numbers and their constructions, not
to numbers themselves.
Truth applies to proposition, or sentences
On 10/30/2012 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No? If they do not have something equivalent to concepts, how can
they dream?
Yes, the universal numbers can have concept.
Dear Bruno,
Let's start over. Please plain in detail what is a universal number
and how it (and not ordinary numbers)
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems
apply only to the concepts of numbers and their constructions, not
to numbers themselves.
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply
only to the concepts of numbers
On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My
On 10/30/2012 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal
On 10/30/2012 10:39 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is that concepts of truth and provability of theorems apply only to the
concepts of numbers and their
On 10/30/2012 10:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2012, at 17:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My argument is
On 10/30/2012 11:00 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 12:51
On 10/30/2012 11:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/30 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/30/2012 1:43
On 10/30/2012 2:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
I think you are confusing the tokens 2 = 1+1 with the proposition 2
= 1+1. The former requires someone who understands the notation to
interpret it, but the latter is the interpretation, i.e. the concept.
A concept has meaning by definition, otherwise
On 10/30/2012 2:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
If there were no humans, no human level consciousness, would it still
be true that Holmes assistant is Watson?
Brent
If there there where no humans and no human level consciousness,
what meaning would the sentence It is true that Holmes assistant
On 10/30/2012 3:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
[SPK] Unless multiple entities can agree that the sequence of symbols
17 is prime is an indicator of some particular mathematical object
and one of its particular properties, then how does 17 is prime
come to mean anything at all?
I agree with that.
On 10/30/2012 1:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:50 PM, meekerdb wrote:
I think you are confusing the tokens 2 = 1+1 with the proposition 2 = 1+1. The
former requires someone who understands the notation to interpret it, but the latter is
the interpretation, i.e. the concept. A
On 10/30/2012 2:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 3:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
[SPK] Unless multiple entities can agree that the sequence of symbols 17 is prime is
an indicator of some particular mathematical object and one of its particular
properties, then how does 17 is prime come to
On 10/30/2012 5:15 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 1:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Brent,
What is it that distinguishes between tokens and propositions?
Tokens are the physical elements (e.g. letters, words, sounds) that
are used to represent a proposition in a particular
On 10/30/2012 5:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 3:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
[SPK] Unless multiple entities can agree that the sequence of
symbols 17 is prime is an indicator of some particular
mathematical object and one of its particular
On 10/30/2012 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:15 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 1:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Brent,
What is it that distinguishes between tokens and propositions?
Tokens are the physical elements (e.g. letters, words, sounds) that are used to
On 10/30/2012 2:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 5:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/30/2012 2:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/30/2012 3:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
[SPK] Unless multiple entities can agree that the sequence of symbols 17 is prime
is an indicator of some particular
On 10/29/2012 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Oct 2012, at 14:36, Stephen P. King wrote:
[Bruno Marchal wrote:] So numbers are universal and can be treated
mathematically as always.
I agree, but the concept of numbers has no meaning prior to the
existence of objects that can be
82 matches
Mail list logo
