On 12 Jun 2009, at 17:16, A. Wolf wrote:
>
>> We agree then.
>
> Yes, it's my fault for creating a semantics argument. I'm usually
> too busy
> to even read the list...every once in a while something pops up and
> I feel
> obliged to comment even when it's the middle of a conversation.
On 12 Jun 2009, at 20:31, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> >Even for just an arithmetical realist. (All mathematicians are
> arithmetical realist, much less are mathematical realist. I am not
> an arithmetical realist).
>
>
> I assume you meant to write "I am not a mathematical realist"?
Yes.
> OK,
Many people believe something like
objectivity = serious, truth, rationality etc.
subjectivity = not serious, childish, unscientific, irrational
when truth is (if I can say, to be short):
subjectivity = what you cannot doubt, what you know, truth
objectivity = hypothetical, theoretical, but s
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> Well it is illegal regarding the rules meaning with these rules set B
> does not exist as defined.
>
What is it that makes set A to exist, and set B not to exist? What is
the (important) differences between the definition of set A and the
definition of set B? In bo
2009/6/14 Torgny Tholerus :
>
> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
>> Well it is illegal regarding the rules meaning with these rules set B
>> does not exist as defined.
>>
>
> What is it that makes set A to exist, and set B not to exist? What is
> the (important) differences between the definition of set A
5 matches
Mail list logo
