Re: axioms of mathematical logic

On 26 Nov 2006 05:13:04 -0800, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:


David C. Ullrich wrote:

No matter how you set things up, it's impossible for _everything_
to be purely formal. There's going to be something which is the
very first bit of formalism in the exposition, and the explanation
of _that_ has to be informal.

To write "_everything_" and "_that_" is to employ a private register
that by Wittgensteins argument of a private language can have no
ultimate meaning for you. Neither do these peculiar typographical
inventions have meaning for anyone else. Perhaps there is something
wrong with the typographical settings on your computer. Please attend
to it.

Hard to decide whether you're serious. If so, you're also seriously
ignorant of some standard conventions (the meaning of which should
nonetheless be clear from context - when I see a certain person I
could name write "/that/" where I'd write "_that_" I have no trouble
figuring out what he means.)


************************

David C. Ullrich
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Torkel Bashing"
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... "His words made perfect sense to me" is a statement ... A clear exposition of results that have been known for a long ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Choice Question # 2
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote & Charlie-Boo wrote: ... I was of that presentation of AC in the language of ZF. ... evidently meaning to say something about me. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: A implies I
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... What do you mean by standard meaning? ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: axioms of mathematical logic
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... inventions have meaning for anyone else. ... ignorant of some standard conventions (the meaning of which should ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: axioms of mathematical logic
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... inventions have meaning for anyone else. ... wrong with the typographical settings on your computer. ...
    (sci.logic)
Loading