- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 16:36:17 +0200

At 10:14 01/07/04 -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:

*>Re the discussion on mathematical realism etc. I ask for comments on
*

*>whether or not "definition" that is the division of "ALL" in to two parts
*

*>is a mathematical process.
*

*>
*

*>To me "definition" seems arbitrary but some definitions result in
*

*>mathematical concepts such as the one I use which results in the concepts
*

*>of incompleteness and inconsistency
*

From this I can infer you are not following classical or more general

standard logic where inconsistent theories are trivially complete in the

sense that *all* propositions are provable (all the true one + all the

false one!).

This explains probably why it is hard to me to follow your post. I

suggested to you (some years ago) to follow simpler paths, for pedagogical

reasons. I read your posts but I have not yet a clue of what are your more

primitive beliefs. You over-use (imo) analogies, which can be inspiring for

some constructive path, but you don't seem to be able to realize the lack

of clarity of your most interesting posts in that regards. I respect your

willingness to try, and I hope my frankness will not discourage you.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Received on Fri Jul 02 2004 - 10:32:45 PDT

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 16:36:17 +0200

At 10:14 01/07/04 -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:

From this I can infer you are not following classical or more general

standard logic where inconsistent theories are trivially complete in the

sense that *all* propositions are provable (all the true one + all the

false one!).

This explains probably why it is hard to me to follow your post. I

suggested to you (some years ago) to follow simpler paths, for pedagogical

reasons. I read your posts but I have not yet a clue of what are your more

primitive beliefs. You over-use (imo) analogies, which can be inspiring for

some constructive path, but you don't seem to be able to realize the lack

of clarity of your most interesting posts in that regards. I respect your

willingness to try, and I hope my frankness will not discourage you.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Received on Fri Jul 02 2004 - 10:32:45 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*