- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
(See below)
Teach! -
I have a difference against your mathematical definition! (ha ha)
I thou
Le 19-août-06, à 21:13, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (John M.) a écrit :
> BTW I have a problem with the "perfect" 6:
> ITS DIVISORS are 1,2,3,6, the sum of which is 12, not 6 and it looks
> that
> there is NO other perfect number in this sense either.
I have define a number to be perfect when it is eq
Hi, Bruno
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
Bruno wrote:
Hi John,
Le 18-août-06, à 03:03, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Why has 6 'divi
Hi John,
Le 18-août-06, à 03:03, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Why has 6 'divisors'? because my math teacher said so?
I say to my students that in case they are saying a falsity (in math),
they will get a bad or a good note, depending on the way they will
defend the proposition. If they de
Le 18-août-06, à 01:14, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>
>
> Bruno Marchal writes:
>
>> There is no authoritative argument in math. There are fashion,
>> prejudice, stubbornness and many human things like that, but nobody
>> serious in math will believe something because the boss said so.
>
> Int
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent Meeker writes:
>
>
>>>Empirical science is universe-specific: eg., any culture, no matter how
>>>bizarre its psychology compared to ours, would work out that sodium
>>>reacts exothermically with water in a universe similar to our own, but
>>>not in a univer
said: "a Twenty".
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
>
>
> Ante diem XVII-um calendas Septembris as Aug. 15 (not XVI as 32-16)
>
Brent Meeker writes:
> > Empirical science is universe-specific: eg., any culture, no matter how
> > bizarre its psychology compared to ours, would work out that sodium
> > reacts exothermically with water in a universe similar to our own, but
> > not in a universe where physical laws and fun
Bruno Marchal writes:
> There is no authoritative argument in math. There are fashion,
> prejudice, stubbornness and many human things like that, but nobody
> serious in math will believe something because the boss said so.
Interesting: this marks mathematics as different from just about
eve
Le 16-août-06, à 22:54, John M a écrit :
>
>> But "2" is just another notation for "xx".
>
> Why is "x" 'just another notation for "2"? or
> why is "xx" not (just) a notation of 3?
Mathematician have all the right! As a mathematician you are free to
name the number two as you want. *polite* m
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Hello to the List :-)
>>
>>The deductions made via UDA are impressing,
>>but I would like to seriously question the Platonic
>>Assumptions underlying all this reasoning.
>>
>>Arguments like the perfectness of 6 seem sensible at
>>first sight, but only beca
> Hello to the List :-)
>
> The deductions made via UDA are impressing,
> but I would like to seriously question the Platonic
> Assumptions underlying all this reasoning.
>
> Arguments like the perfectness of 6 seem sensible at
> first sight, but only because we look at this with human
> eye
> You might like William S. Cooper's "The
> Evolution of Reason" which argues that logic and mathematics are produced by
> evolution. Hence they would be common in any intelligent species that arose
> by evolution.
Thanks for the book tip, will certainly look into this!
Regards,
Günther
--~-
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But "2" is just another notation for "xx".
Why is "x" 'just another notation for "2"? or
why is "xx" not (just) a notation of 3?
(because Peano said so?)
John M
>
>
> Le 16-août-06, à 02:25, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
> >
> > Bruno Marchal wro
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 16-août-06, à 02:25, Brent Meeker a écrit :
...
>>There I think I disagree. If there were no intelligent creatures like
>>ourselves, the infinite set of integers would not "exist" (I don't
>>think
>>they exist like my coffee does anyway). There would be "xx" but no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Very wise words, Bruno.
> John
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:45 AM
> Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
>
>
>
>
&g
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 16-août-06, à 15:28, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
>>
>>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Note also I have not yet seen physical theory which does not assume
>>>numbers.
>>
>>Physical theories assume the validity of mathematical statements.
>>That doesn't mean the existence of number
How the Embodied Mind Brings
> Mathematics Into Being; George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez, 2001
> - Metaphors We Live; George Lakoff, Mark Johnson 2003
> - Chasing Reality. Strife Over Realism; Mario Bunge, 2006
>
> (I can recommend nearly everything by Bunge, who excels at clear
> r
Very wise words, Bruno.
John
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
Le 15-août-06, à 20:52, complexitystudies a écrit :
> The deductions made via
Le 16-août-06, à 15:28, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Note also I have not yet seen physical theory which does not assume
>> numbers.
>
> Physical theories assume the validity of mathematical statements.
> That doesn't mean the existence of numbers. Everyone agrees that
> numbers
Le 16-août-06, à 03:39, Brent Meeker a écrit :
> I agree. Mathematics and logic are ways of constraining our
> propositions so
> we don't assert contradictions; contradictions of our own rules. But
> that
> doesn't mean they are strong enough to keep us from asserting
> absurdities.
I th
Le 16-août-06, à 02:25, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Le 14-août-06, à 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> But how must the perfect number exist or not exist? You say you only
>>> mean
>>> it must be true that there is a number equal to the sum of its
>>> divsors
>>
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Note also I have not yet seen physical theory which does not assume
> numbers.
Physical theories assume the validity of mathematical statements.
That doesn't mean the existence of numbers. Everyone agrees that
numbers can't be empirically detected, so if they don't exist
Ante diem XVII-um calendas Septembris as Aug. 15 (not XVI as 32-16)
John M wrote:
>
> Bruno:
>
> What is - 6 - ?
> Perfect number, you say.
> If I do NOT count - or quantize, does it have ANY meaning at all?
Again we are discussing the arithmetical realism (which I just assume).
To be c
Le 15-août-06, à 20:52, complexitystudies a écrit :
> The deductions made via UDA are impressing,
> but I would like to seriously question the Platonic
> Assumptions underlying all this reasoning.
No problem. I see you assume a physical universe. I don't. We have just
different theories.
Note
Le 15-août-06, à 20:32, David Nyman a écrit :
> But don't we just 'derive' natural numbers by establishing a semantic
> equivalence between '6' and the collection of faces on a cube?
But what is a cube?
> And
> their additive and multiplicative structures likewise by analogy and
> generali
complexitystudies wrote:
> Hello to the List :-)
>
> The deductions made via UDA are impressing,
> but I would like to seriously question the Platonic
> Assumptions underlying all this reasoning.
>
> Arguments like the perfectness of 6 seem sensible at
> first sight, but only because we look at
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 14-août-06, à 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
>
>>But how must the perfect number exist or not exist? You say you only
>>mean
>>it must be true that there is a number equal to the sum of its divsors
>>independent of you. Do you mean independent only in the sense t
l" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
Le 14-août-06, à 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
> But how must the perfect number exist or not exist? You say you only
> mean
> it must be true that ther
Hello to the List :-)
The deductions made via UDA are impressing,
but I would like to seriously question the Platonic
Assumptions underlying all this reasoning.
Arguments like the perfectness of 6 seem sensible at
first sight, but only because we look at this with human
eyes.
1) Mathematical th
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > So, I can give 'meaning' to an 'indexical 1st-person Bruno'
> > instantiating the *idea* of 'a perfect number', because its 'indexical
> > existence' is part of this 'Bruno'.
>
> I think the only way you can do that is with "David" instead of "Bruno".
> It seems to me tha
Le 14-août-06, à 17:44, David Nyman wrote :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> It just means that I (Bruno) believes that Bruno (I) is not so
>> important in the sense that if I die, a perfect number will still
>> either exist or not exist. I do interpret Penrose's mathematical
>> platonism in that w
Le 14-août-06, à 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
> But how must the perfect number exist or not exist? You say you only
> mean
> it must be true that there is a number equal to the sum of its divsors
> independent of you. Do you mean independent only in the sense that
> others
> will know 6 is
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 12-août-06, à 03:00, David Nyman a écrit :
>
>
>>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If grandmother asks for recalling the main difference between Plato
>>>and
>>>Aristotle's theories of matter, I would just say that in Plato, the
>>>visible (observable, measurable) realm
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> It just means that I (Bruno) believes that Bruno (I) is not so
> important in the sense that if I die, a perfect number will still
> either exist or not exist. I do interpret Penrose's mathematical
> platonism in that way, and I agree with him (on that), like I think
> davi
Le 12-août-06, à 16:36, David Nyman a écrit (to Colin Hales):
> My belief has been that restoring 1st person to some sort of centrality
> would be part of the antidote, and I haven't yet (quite) lost hope on
> this score. I look forward to the fruits of your own efforts in this
> regard.
Comp c
Le 12-août-06, à 09:56, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :
>
> BTW Plato followed Heraclitus, who was already onto this.
I put Heraclitus in the "first person or time central" people. I am not
sure it makes sense to say follows Heraclitus (although he deliver some
nice text defending that views
Le 12-août-06, à 03:00, David Nyman a écrit :
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> If grandmother asks for recalling the main difference between Plato
>> and
>> Aristotle's theories of matter, I would just say that in Plato, the
>> visible (observable, measurable) realm is taken as appearances or
>> s
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 3:56 AM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...
>
> "David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >> If grandmother asks for recalling the main differen
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> The words 'direct probing' assume that indeed we are at some point
> "directly probing". If you can justify any account that we directly probe
> (whatever that means!) anything I'd like to see it!
I see what you mean. Francis Bacon described our enterprise as to 've
"David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> If grandmother asks for recalling the main difference between Plato and
Aristotle's theories of matter, I would just say that in Plato, the
visible (observable, measurable) realm is taken as appearances or
shadows related to a deeper
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> If grandmother asks for recalling the main difference between Plato and
> Aristotle's theories of matter, I would just say that in Plato, the
> visible (observable, measurable) realm is taken as appearances or
> shadows related to a deeper unknown reality.
A question from
42 matches
Mail list logo
