2009/6/9 Torgny Tholerus <tor...@dsv.su.se>: > > Jesse Mazer skrev: >> >> >> > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200 >> > From: tor...@dsv.su.se >> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com >> > Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries >> > >> > My philosophical argument is about the mening of the word "all". To be >> > able to use that word, you must associate it with a value set. >> >> What's a "value set"? And why do you say we "must" associate it in >> this way? Do you have a philosophical argument for this "must", or is >> it just an edict that reflects your personal aesthetic preferences? >> >> > Mostly that set is "all objects in the universe", and if you stay >> inside the >> > universe, there is no problems. >> >> *I* certainly don't define numbers in terms of any specific mapping >> between numbers and objects in the universe, it seems like a rather >> strange notion--shall we have arguments over whether the number 113485 >> should be associated with this specific shoelace or this specific >> kangaroo? > > When I talk about "universe" here, I do not mean our physical universe. > What I mean is something that can be called "everything". It includes > all objects in our physical universe, as well as all symbols and all > words and all numbers and all sets and all other universes. It includes > everything you can use the word "all" about.
It includes all set, but no all set as it N includes all natural number but not all natural number... excuse-me but this is non-sense. Either N exists and has an infinite number of member and is incompatible with an ultrafinitist view or N does not exists because obviously N cannot be defined in an ultra-finitist way, any set that contains a finite number of natural number (and still you haven't defined what it is in an ultrafinitist way) are not the set N. Also any operation involving two number (addition/multiplication) can yield as result a number which has the same property as the departing number (being a natural number) but is not natural number... Also induction and inference cannot work in such a context. > For you to be able to use the word "all", you must define the "domain" > of that word. If you do not define the domain, then it will be > impossible for me and all other humans to understand what you are > talking about. Well you are the first and only human I know who don't understand "all" as everybody else does. Quentin Anciaux > > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
