Re: Towards disproof of Omega 2
From: ken quirici (kquirici_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/06/05
- Next message: Albert: "Re: AI versus Human Consciousness"
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Towards disproof of Omega 2"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Towards disproof of Omega 2"
- Next in thread: xanthian_at_well.com: "Re: Towards disproof of Omega 2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 6 Jan 2005 06:55:56 -0800
Could someone please define constructivist, as it applies to a type
of mathematician/logician?
If it is someone who won't accept the existence of something for which
there is no [halting] construction, then is this not an 'agnostic'
position rather than an 'atheist' position? That is, you may dispute
that the diagonalization argument, for example, doesn't work, but
may also accept that the reals MIGHT be a higher order of infinity
than the rationals?
And is it not true that the constructivist position, further, doesn't
actually provide proofs CONTRADICTING, e.g., the diagonalization
argument?
It would seem Herc is an 'atheist'.
Thanks.
Ken
- Next message: Albert: "Re: AI versus Human Consciousness"
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Towards disproof of Omega 2"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Towards disproof of Omega 2"
- Next in thread: xanthian_at_well.com: "Re: Towards disproof of Omega 2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|