Le 22-oct.-06, 1Z ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Bruno's versions of COMP must embed Platonism (passim)
You keep saying that, and I keep telling you that I need only
Arithmetical Realism, which is defined by the belief that classical
logic is sound for arithmetic. I use often the expression
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 20-oct.-06, à 17:04, 1Z a écrit :
As usual, the truth of a mathematical existence-claim does not
prove Platonism.
By Platonism, or better arithmetical realism I just mean the belief
by many mathematician in the non constructive proof of OR statements.
So where
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 21-oct.-06, à 06:02, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
The UD is both massively parallel
and massively sequential. Recall the UD generates all programs and
executes them all together, but one step
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 22-oct.-06, 1Z ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Bruno's versions of COMP must embed Platonism (passim)
You keep saying that, and I keep telling you that I need only
Arithmetical Realism, which is defined by the belief that classical
logic is sound for arithmetic.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Here I disagree, or if you want make that distinction (introduced by
Peter), you can sum up the conclusion of the UD Argument by:
Computationalism entails COMP.
Bruno, could you distinguish between your remarks vis-a-vis comp, that
on the one hand: a belief in 'primary'
Bruno Marchal wrote:
As usual, the truth of a mathematical existence-claim does not
prove Platonism.
By Platonism, or better arithmetical realism I just mean the belief
by many mathematician in the non constructive proof of OR statements.
Lest we go yet another round in the
David Nyman wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
As usual, the truth of a mathematical existence-claim does not
prove Platonism.
By Platonism, or better arithmetical realism I just mean the belief
by many mathematician in the non constructive proof of OR statements.
Lest we go yet
Hi Stathis,
I answer you, but it is at the same time a test, because most of my
yesterday (sunday 22 october) posts seems not having been send
successfully.
(Some arrived at the archive, but not in my mail box, others nowhere, I
will wait a whole and resend them: it was message for Peter and
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the present.
Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin, until I've a little
more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's about - 'time'. Just
how thin is this slice of yours? And is it important
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I answer you, but it is at the same time a test, because most of my
yesterday (sunday 22 october) posts seems not having been send
successfully.
(Some arrived at the archive, but not in my mail box, others nowhere, I
will wait a whole and resend them: it was message for
Peter Jones writes:
Bruno's versions of COMP must embed Platonism (passim)
You keep saying that, and I keep telling you that I need only
Arithmetical Realism, which is defined by the belief that classical
logic is sound for arithmetic.
You need a UD -- a UD which exists.
Colin Hales wrote:
3) The current state of the proof is 'now'
the thin slice of the
present.
Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin,
until I've a little
more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's
about - 'time'. Just
how thin is this slice of yours? And is
In an excellent and clear post Peter Jones writes:
Matter is a bare substrate with no properties of its own. The question
may well be asked at this point: what roles does it perform ? Why not
dispense with matter and just have bundles of properties -- what does
matter add to a merely
13 matches
Mail list logo
