On 10/29/2012 1:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno
Still waiting for the storm to shut things down.
Numbers are not discussed specifically as far as I can find yet,
in my books on Leibniz. Which probably means that
they are simply numbers, with no ontological status.
Sort of like space or
On 29 Oct 2012, at 06:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno
Still waiting for the storm to shut things down.
Take care.
Numbers are not discussed specifically as far as I can find yet,
in my books on Leibniz. Which probably means that
they are simply numbers, with no ontological status.
On 29 Oct 2012, at 14:36, Stephen P. King wrote:
So numbers are universal and can be treated
mathematically as always.
I agree, but the concept of numbers has no meaning prior to the
existence of objects that can be counted. To think otherwise is
equivalent to claiming that
Hi Bruno
Still waiting for the storm to shut things down.
Numbers are not discussed specifically as far as I can find yet,
in my books on Leibniz. Which probably means that
they are simply numbers, with no ontological status.
Sort of like space or time. Inextended and everywhere.
Numbers
4 matches
Mail list logo